4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true

[fendrin]

EE,

I think the difficulty you are having with the basic 4e setting is that you are looking for it to be logical and internally consistent.

The problem with that is that the basic fluff is meant to be a simple framework that allows the game to played 'out of the box'. It is designed to enable gameplay without particularly influencing it. This means things like smaller, less complicated settlements, a high monster population, no social stigmas against certain groups... sound familiar?

I don't think anyone here will claim that the basic setting will make for better games than a logical, internally consistent setting, just easier.

I feel your primary fallacy is claiming that the basic 4e setting will have an irreparable effect on all 4e games. I have yet to see a crunch effect of the fluff. If the fluff has not influenced the crunch, then the fluff does not matter. Replace it at will and never look back.

[Thane of Fife]

The Monty Haul effect is basically the handing out of enormous amounts of treasure, often to the point where it defines the characters (although the amount is the important part). Leads to the problems of
1. Decreases player fascination ("Oh, another Vorpal Sword +4.")
2. Causes the DM to forget player capabilities ("What? You have a Rope of Inescapable Capture?"
3. Causes characters to become little more than collections of magic items
4. Is difficult to reverse


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 don't quite understand this argument, EE. A few questions:

1. What kind of support are you worried about? What kind of stuff are you worried won't be released which would make non-Points of Light less fun?

2. You do know that nations and large cities can exist in Points of Light, right? All that this idea says is that, outside of the few civilized areas, there are monsters and evil. That can easily describe a nation, where, say outside of a few heavily patrolled cities bandits lurk in the forests. A place like Rohan is still Points of Light - that's why there are orcs walking around and attacking people/kidnapping hobbits.

On Racism:

The reason why racism isn't in the generic setting is because most people don't enjoy racism. Nothing says that you can't have racism, but it isn't included because most people play RPGs to escape the real world and go somewhere where they can do anything. Very few people want to hear "Oh, you can't play as a human wizard, because only halflings are accepted to the School of Magic in my campaign."

This is the same reason why sexism is openly denied in the rulebooks - that's more realistic too, but I don't hear you clamoring for it. In an RPG, people want freedom of choice; this is why with 3e and forwards, all classes have been opened to all races. It's why dozens of monster races have been made available for PC use.

Furthermore, if WotC publishes a game in which they describe racism in detail, then those people who oppose D&D are going to use this to fuel their arguments - "This game encourages racism." That leads to bad PR, and that is something WotC doesn't really want.

So, while you're going to argue that racism adds to versimilitude, the simple answer is that things like racism, sexism, and other such touchy subjects are more safely left out, and added to the game at the DM's discretion.

On Evil vs. Evil:

You've been a bit unclear here, as well. You keep mentioning that Evil vs. Evil is being left out of the game, but at the same time, you're arguing that, since Wizards isn't statting Good creatures (theoretically), there will be nothing for Evil characters to do. Which is it? Can Evil fight Evil, or does it need to fight Good?

On FATAL:

Just my opinion here, but I'd say that the problem here is that the author tried to simulate the world more or less as medieval people saw it - i.e. he took all the unpleasant stereotypes they'd have had, and made them all true. And he didn't even do it via the proxy of orcs and such. At least, that's a large part of the problem.

[Rutee]

So, while you're going to argue that racism adds to versimilitude, the simple answer is that things like racism, sexism, and other such touchy subjects are more safely left out, and added to the game at the DM's discretion.


I hadn't even thought of sexism. Basically though, the idea behind no -ism is that it'll make the game unfun... for reasons that /will not change/. That is, you make these choices at character creation; They are not mutable, and they will haunt you. Basically, you don't want to penalize people for something that appears so early in the concept.

[Titanium Dragon]

I think the difficulty you are having with the basic 4e setting is that you are looking for it to be logical and internally consistent.

I don't think it is inherently non-internally consistant, at least on the surface; I mean, yeah, if you assume human technological progression virtually no fantasy world makes a whit of sense, but they are fantasy worlds, where people really COULD have been created in-situ, civilizations regress significantly, ect.

I don't think it is all that bad as long as you don't try to apply the same rules to it as to the real world; fantasy in general suffers if you try to apply real world rules to it. Well, at least as far as the fantasy elements are concerned.

[EvilElitest]

The Monty Haul effect is basically the handing out of enormous amounts of treasure, often to the point where it defines the characters (although the amount is the important part). Leads to the problems of
1. Decreases player fascination ("Oh, another Vorpal Sword +4.")
2. Causes the DM to forget player capabilities ("What? You have a Rope of Inescapable Capture?"
3. Causes characters to become little more than collections of magic items
4. Is difficult to reverse

So your refering to the wealth by level rules? Just want to check first. I agree with you on its annoyence but i just want to check something. Any rules/sections related to this effect. Specifics please?

Also 4E seems to be doing the same thing but with abilities.


I don't quite understand this argument, EE. A few questions:

1. What kind of support are you worried about? What kind of stuff are you worried won't be released which would make non-Points of Light less fun?

2. You do know that nations and large cities can exist in Points of Light, right? All that this idea says is that, outside of the few civilized areas, there are monsters and evil. That can easily describe a nation, where, say outside of a few heavily patrolled cities bandits lurk in the forests. A place like Rohan is still Points of Light - that's why there are orcs walking around and attacking people/kidnapping hobbits.

1. The Book Worlds and Monsters it says they are deliberately moving away from the whole nation based world, the real world basis, and are moving wholly into points of light. Now FR is doing this as well sadly, despite that ruining most of its premise. Now some specific settings might exist, but if that is the only option around for a play style that has been around for a while and doesn't need to be dropped, i'm rather upset.
2. Oh yes i know, that is the premise of FR. 4E isn't going for that. If the generic world worked under the assumption that both concepts existed, i'd be cool, points of light can work well in certain areas. However the entire world is apparently points of light (poor FR, we miss you)


On Racism:

The reason why racism isn't in the generic setting is because most people don't enjoy racism. Nothing says that you can't have racism, but it isn't included because most people play RPGs to escape the real world and go somewhere where they can do anything. Very few people want to hear "Oh, you can't play as a human wizard, because only halflings are accepted to the School of Magic in my campaign."
1. Racism isn't a mechanical rule, it is an assumption. Now racism makes sense in a setting with logical people, but hte PCs shouldn't be forced to abide by racial stereotypes
2. On that matter, if 4E pulled a 360 and declared extremly in born racism, i'd still argue that. I don't want them to make any statement pro or against racism in terms of rules, and simply let use decied. I expect racist attitudes to exist, as any world would have, but i don't expect racist establishments or "anti X" groups to have power within a generic setting. I want the rules to say "well you can have it ether way". I want the option to exist ether way, don't force racism upon people by saying "Only X can be mages" but i also expect the idea that certain groups/people in the world are in fact racist
3. On the subject of FR however, racism is part of certain part of the setting and has been, and it is now being taken away, that is just bad form :smallmad:



This is the same reason why sexism is openly denied in the rulebooks - that's more realistic too, but I don't hear you clamoring for it. In an RPG, people want freedom of choice; this is why with 3e and forwards, all classes have been opened to all races. It's why dozens of monster races have been made available for PC use.

oh, good point with hte sexism, didn't consider that. That being said, i personally leave sexism up to the particular culture (ironically, there is some sexism, Drow for example in 3E, Orcs and other creatures are in fact sexist along with certain societies/groups)

However it is worth noting in core, there is never any "official" deceleration on their views of sexism, they assume that males and female have the same stats and don't go into detail about sexism, i can play a 3E game with no sexism at all or a male/female dominated society.


Furthermore, if WotC publishes a game in which they describe racism in detail, then those people who oppose D&D are going to use this to fuel their arguments - "This game encourages racism." That leads to bad PR, and that is something WotC doesn't really want.

I think that is an issue on WOTC writing skills, racism (well specisim) can be done in a non offensive manner as long as it is made clear this isn't WOTC decision. But good point however.


So, while you're going to argue that racism adds to versimilitude, the simple answer is that things like racism, sexism, and other such touchy subjects are more safely left out, and added to the game at the DM's discretion.

Mostly i want a reason for racism to not exist, i'm quite content with them ignoring the matter as they did in 3E and letting it come up according to personal preference, not them making the game specifically to avoid this without an in game reason


On Evil vs. Evil:

You've been a bit unclear here, as well. You keep mentioning that Evil vs. Evil is being left out of the game, but at the same time, you're arguing that, since Wizards isn't statting Good creatures (theoretically), there will be nothing for Evil characters to do. Which is it? Can Evil fight Evil, or does it need to fight Good?
1. There reason for not stating good creatures is because they won't fight hte PCs. Yeah......
2. the reason for evil not fighting evil is extremly inconsistent sadly, it doesn't make sense from an in game perspective.



On FATAL:

Just my opinion here, but I'd say that the problem here is that the author tried to simulate the world more or less as medieval people saw it - i.e. he took all the unpleasant stereotypes they'd have had, and made them all true. And he didn't even do it via the proxy of orcs and such. At least, that's a large part of the problem.

He also assumed there was absolutely no morality in any world, and in fact took the absurdities of perversions to an absurd extent. It is like watching Dirty Harry or 300, everybody is to evil to be believable


EE,

I think the difficulty you are having with the basic 4e setting is that you are looking for it to be logical and internally consistent.

The problem with that is that the basic fluff is meant to be a simple framework that allows the game to played 'out of the box'. It is designed to enable gameplay without particularly influencing it. This means things like smaller, less complicated settlements, a high monster population, no social stigmas against certain groups... sound familiar?

You can have an internal consistent games while having basic fluff as long as the rules are balanced logically.


I feel your primary fallacy is claiming that the basic 4e setting will have an irreparable effect on all 4e games. I have yet to see a crunch effect of the fluff. If the fluff has not influenced the crunch, then the fluff does not matter. Replace it at will and never look back.



Well in doing so i'm changing every single game and in essence i'm changing the nature of the game until i'm playing something entirely different (as i will have to change both fluff, setting, and mechanics). And then i have to ask my self "Wait, i love D&D, but why even bother buying this if i can't play it without massively changing it
from
EE

[fendrin]

You can have an internal consistent games while having basic fluff as long as the rules are balanced logically.
Eh, what? Not sure what you are saying here. Whether the rules (crunch, I presume) are balanced has nothing to do with the basic fluff...

What I was trying to say is that in order to explain why something is a certain way in the basic setting would cause that basic setting to become more complex and less generic, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.


Well in doing so i'm changing every single game and in essence i'm changing the nature of the game until i'm playing something entirely different (as i will have to change both fluff, setting, and mechanics).

Who said anything about changing mechanics? I was very specifically talking about the setting. Setting is fluff. Fluff is not mechanics. Therefore setting is not mechanics.

You have already said you are changing the fluff of your 3.X games. Don't you still consider it playing D&D? If so, then why is 4e different?

[Titanium Dragon]

On Racism:

The reason why racism isn't in the generic setting is because most people don't enjoy racism. Nothing says that you can't have racism, but it isn't included because most people play RPGs to escape the real world and go somewhere where they can do anything. Very few people want to hear "Oh, you can't play as a human wizard, because only halflings are accepted to the School of Magic in my campaign."

This is the same reason why sexism is openly denied in the rulebooks - that's more realistic too, but I don't hear you clamoring for it. In an RPG, people want freedom of choice; this is why with 3e and forwards, all classes have been opened to all races. It's why dozens of monster races have been made available for PC use.

Furthermore, if WotC publishes a game in which they describe racism in detail, then those people who oppose D&D are going to use this to fuel their arguments - "This game encourages racism." That leads to bad PR, and that is something WotC doesn't really want.

So, while you're going to argue that racism adds to versimilitude, the simple answer is that things like racism, sexism, and other such touchy subjects are more safely left out, and added to the game at the DM's discretion.

These are also good reasons for them to leave out racism and sexism, though to be honest, I'd be sad if they were left out of official campaign settings - they are a good way to add spice and flavor to a world.

Thing is though, it shouldn't be the DEFAULT assumption for the reasons pointed out above, as well as the whole "not penalizing players for playing the character they want to play."

[ZekeArgo]

fendrin's logical points

Honestly fendrin, just don't bother. Bringing up one logical point after another won't do anything to deter or or make the kid pause and think. He'll just ramble on ignoring your arguments and spouting rhetoric.

[EvilElitest]

Eh, what? Not sure what you are saying here. Whether the rules (crunch, I presume) are balanced has nothing to do with the basic fluff...

What I was trying to say is that in order to explain why something is a certain way in the basic setting would cause that basic setting to become more complex and less generic, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.

1. balance does, that was 3E problem
2. On that subject well if they have to explain why they have to do stuff is to much trouble, then don't do it. If they didn't mention evil fighting evil and left it up to individual DMs/Settings we wouldn't have a problem now would we?




Who said anything about changing mechanics? I was very specifically talking about the setting. Setting is fluff. Fluff is not mechanics. Therefore setting is not mechanics.

They do go together. For example the NPC PC stuff



You have already said you are changing the fluff of your 3.X games. Don't you still consider it playing D&D? If so, then why is 4e different?
Except i don't dramatically change the fluff, or i change it to suit my personal preference. Normally i keep the concept of the races/classes ect pretty much the same i a change things to make them fit in my world, not the concept itself. Normally, not for Kender.



Honestly fendrin, just don't bother. Bringing up one logical point after another won't do anything to deter or or make the kid pause and think. He'll just ramble on ignoring your arguments and spouting rhetoric.
we've all heard loser whine before, if they can't get their way because they can't support themselves they simple sit back and try to resort of discrediting. Yeah, you do that, real mature, way to prove your opints


For the record, i rather like Fendrin's methods, he has shown the ability to support his points in a coherent manner, which is more than a lot of others can say. Keep it up
from
EE

[hewhosaysfish]

Well in doing so i'm changing every single game and in essence i'm changing the nature of the game until i'm playing something entirely different (as i will have to change both fluff, setting, and mechanics). And then i have to ask my self "Wait, i love D&D, but why even bother buying this if i can't play it without massively changing it

But are you having to change everything? That's the point he's making. You're reasoning seems to be:

1) The generic default setting for 4e will have no racism.
2) This lack of racism will be reflected in the rules.
3) The racial equality in the rules will force other settings to also remove any racism.

But I've yet to see any evidence of 2) so you can't derive 3).
Of course, if the 4e version of Magic Missile reads...



Magic Missile:-
Frequency: At will
Range: 80 squares
Target: One creature
Effect: Target takes 1d4+1 damage. Additionally, nobody is racist. Nobody.

...then I'll agree you have a point.

But I really doubt you'll have to change the mechanics if you want to play in a setting with racism. You'll still have to change the setting but that's only to be expected if, you know, you want to play in a different setting.

[horseboy]

Monty Haul was the host of the TV game show Let's Make a Deal! (http://www.letsmakeadeal.com/). "I'll give $100 to anyone in the studio audience in a bunny suit!"

Modern Points of Light:
Montana
The Dakotas
Texas
Alaska
Canada (The WW splatbook Vancouver even called it a "point of light")
Australia.
Pretty much any where with an average population less than 40 or 50 people/ square mile.

Throw in some hostile natives (read Orcs), some desperadoes (bandits) and hostile wild life (owlbears) and you've got adventures!

[illathid]

Magic Missile:-
Frequency: At will
Range: 80 squares
Target: One creature
Effect: Target takes 1d4+1 damage. Additionally, nobody is racist. Nobody.

Hahaha... Thats hilarious. Lets see if I can do one...



Cleave Fighter Attack 1
You hit one enemy, then cleave into another.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: +6 vs. AC
Hit: 1d10 + 5 damage (if using handaxe 1d6 + 5 damage), no political entities larger than city states exist, and an enemy adjacent to the target takes 3 damage.

[Muyten]

2. On that subject well if they have to explain why they have to do stuff is to much trouble, then don't do it. If they didn't mention evil fighting evil and left it up to individual DMs/Settings we wouldn't have a problem now would we?


As you yourself have repeatedly stated they said in the preview books that core will contain less evil vs. evil (which you seem to interpret as no evil fighting evil). So now you are saying that this is a good thing because less fluff about something gives the DM/settings greater freedom?

[Dan_Hemmens]

On the "racism" thing. Is it possible that when they talk about there being no ingrained racial conflicts, they mean things like Dwarves automatically hating Goblins (to the extent that they get bonuses for attacking them) irrespective of what setting you're in?

[Rachel Lorelei]

we've all heard loser whine before, if they can't get their way because they can't support themselves they simple sit back and try to resort of discrediting. Yeah, you do that, real mature, way to prove your opints


I haven't jumped in precisely because of what they're pointing out.

You're being completely irrational. You're blindly interpreting everything in the absolute worst way possible--sometimes, in ways I wouldn't have thought possible.

It's very obvious to this (frankly, largely disinterested in this thread) bystander you've decided to hate 4E, and you'll continue to do so even if it proves to be the Perfect System, ends war, and solves world hunger.

[Mr. Friendly]

Hahaha... Thats hilarious. Lets see if I can do one...

LOL!

Let me try...


Hook Horror, Level 13 Soldier
Large Aberrant Beast
Init +11; Senses darkvision; Perception +15
HP 150; Bloodied 75
AC 30; Fortitude 27 Reflex 24 Will 23
Speed 6
m Claw (Standard; at-will)
Reach 2; +21 vs. AC; 1d10+8 AND Followup
Followup: +19 vs. Fort; Large or smaller; pull 1 AND Restrained. Only 1 at a time
M Feast (Standard; at-will)
+21 vs. AC; Restrained only; 3d10+8
M Fling (Standard; at-will)
+21 vs. Fort; Restrained only; 2d10+8 AND push 4 AND knock prone
Lethal
+4 attack against bloodied targets
Monster
Can only fight Good PCs and NPCs, never Evil. NEVER
Non-racist
Is not racist
Str +14 Dex +11 Wis +10
Con +12 Int +3 Cha +7

[Mr. Friendly]

/post/

I have heard of mythical monsters which reside on the internets. These strange creatures attack, seemingly without reason and they seek to destroy everything. These creatures are called trolls and they can only be killed with fire and acid. :smallbiggrin:

[Oslecamo]

ends war, and solves world hunger.

Since that would make the USA economy colapse, the wotc staff would be deemed traitors, executed and all copies of 4e seeked and destroyed, and players would be sent to secret prisons to be tortured for years.


EE is just thinking on all those people's sake...I think.

[Dan_Hemmens]

LOL!

Let me try...

You forgot to add "NPCs wounded by this creature automatically die at 0HP and cannot be resurrected, the DM is not allowed to rule otherwise" and of course "This creature ceases to exist when the PCs stop looking at it."

[illathid]

You forgot to add "NPCs wounded by this creature automatically die at 0HP and cannot be resurrected, the DM is not allowed to rule otherwise" and of course "This creature ceases to exist when the PCs stop looking at it."

I don't know what you've been smoking Dan, because in 4e, only the undead and constructs have those abilities.

[Thane of Fife]

So your refering to the wealth by level rules? Just want to check first. I agree with you on its annoyence but i just want to check something. Any rules/sections related to this effect. Specifics please?

Also 4E seems to be doing the same thing but with abilities.

I'm uncertain what the reference was to; I was just answering your question.

But in 4th, abilities aren't really Monty Haul because they're part of the character. For example, Feats wouldn't be considered Monty Haul in 3rd, even though characters get a lot of them, because they're as much part of the character as, say, Skills or Ability Scores. Monty Haul is usually limited to Magic Items and Experience, when they're given out so frequently that they cease to be 'Rewards' and become 'Expectations.' Powers don't fit because they aren't supposed to be Rewards.


The Book Worlds and Monsters it says they are deliberately moving away from the whole nation based world, the real world basis, and are moving wholly into points of light. <snip> If the generic world worked under the assumption that both concepts existed, i'd be cool, points of light can work well in certain areas. However the entire world is apparently points of light (poor FR, we miss you)

I think maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant that a world can be 100% Points of Light, and still have nations and big cities, which fit with the Points of Light concept.

For example, the real medieval world was essentially Points of Light, where leaving town was dangerous, even though you might live in the capital of some nation. The Sword Coast of the Forgotten Realms is Points of Light, even though it boasts enormous cities.

Indeed, all that Points of Light means is that, when you aren't in a town or city, you're in a place which is potentially dangerous.

Racism:

4th Edition doesn't say that you can't have racism. You keep citing some line from one of the preview books (I can't recall exactly what it was), and saying that it means there will be no racism in the generic setting. But you aren't considering the other possible meanings of the quote:

1. Maybe it means that, as Dan says, they'll get rid of the Dwarves hate Goblins and get +1 to hit them thing, and make racial enmities more setting-based.

2. Maybe it means that racism is intended to be more dependent on the individual than on the race of said individual (i.e. some dwarves hate goblins, others don't).

3. Perhaps the quote is simply directed at 3rd edition veterans as a way of saying, "We changed a bunch of races which previously weren't trusted by anybody (tieflings). Now they're more normal, so that mistrust isn't necessarily there anymore."

4. Maybe you're right, and they just aren't including racism in the generic setting because they don't want to deal with it. If this is the case though, then they shouldn't explain it, because if they do, then that's more setting-specific 'fluff' in the core books, and that's exactly what you don't want.


If they didn't mention evil fighting evil and left it up to individual DMs/Settings we wouldn't have a problem now would we?

But how do you know what it says about evil fighting evil? Go look at your quote on the first page of this topic. I don't understand how you can take that to mean that the books will even imply that evil doesn't fight evil. Taking your quote to the absolute extreme, the books won't mention anything about iEvil vs Evil, which is, apparently, exactly what you want. Right?

[fendrin]

1. balance does, that was 3E problem
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase this as a complete sentence?


2. On that subject well if they have to explain why they have to do stuff is to much trouble, then don't do it. If they didn't mention evil fighting evil and left it up to individual DMs/Settings we wouldn't have a problem now would we?
They mentioned it in a preview book which is intended to highlight the differences between 3e and 4e. I would highly doubt that the 3e core books will say much about evil vs. evil at all. That's kind of what their saying. It's not that there won't be evil fighting evil, it's that there won't be as much built into the 4e basic fluff as there was in the 3e basic fluff. It won't have any inherent rules effect, one way or the other. That would be silly, and a waste of space in the core books, which is what they are EXPLICITLY trying to avoid.


They do go together. For example the NPC PC stuff
You mean the fact that PCs are special, with more hit points, special abilities, not dying at 0 hp, etc?

That has nothing to do with fluff, that is all about gameplay. WotC decided that it was somewhat less than dramatic for a single 1st level orc barbarian to be a credible threat to FOUR PCs. I applaud that decision. However, the fact remained that there was a small chance that a single orc barbarian could TPK a party of 1st level characters, and was indeed a credible threat. So there are two ways to fix that: strengthen the PCs or weaken the barbarian. It is difficult weaken a 1st level character and have them not be entirely helpless.
Therefore, The PCs had to be made stronger. I used to do that by starting my players above 1st level and using multiple, weaker enemies. That has essentially now become the default situation, just labeled somewhat differently.

I have yet to actually see an official 'fluff' reason for it. It wouldn't surprise me if there never was one.


Except i don't dramatically change the fluff, or i change it to suit my personal preference. Normally i keep the concept of the races/classes ect pretty much the same i a change things to make them fit in my world, not the concept itself. Normally, not for Kender.
Ah, but the extent of how much fluff gets changed is not a factor. If the entirety of the fluff can be changed without altering the mechanics, then the default fluff does not matter.


For the record, i rather like Fendrin's methods, he has shown the ability to support his points in a coherent manner, which is more than a lot of others can say. Keep it up
from
EE
Thanks! it's pretty simple, really.
1) Make no assumptions (so obvious, and yet...).
2) Use proper spelling and grammar (so others can understand you).
3) Don't buy into hype or hyperbole (corollary of #1).
4) Be reasonable (and let reason guide your statements & interpretations).
5) Try to understand WHY things were said (both by the WotC and by other posters).
6) Above all, be civil (again, obvious, yet ignored).

I also strive for the middle ground, and play devil's advocate about what I am saying before I post. I try to be clear what is opinion and what is based on fact. If it is fact, I try to back it up with a reference. If I think it is fact, but can't find a reference, I SERIOUSLY reconsider saying it. If I do, I say that I can't find the reference.

#5 also applies to trying to understand WHY changes are being made. And really, really think about it. Seriously, folks, the 4e designers are trying to make a salable product. As much as they want to recruit new players, the lion's share of the customers are going to be people who are already consumers of WotC products. They have nothing to gain by alienating us, and a lot to lose. Do you really think they are going to risk that? Hasbro/WotC may be greedy, but they aren't stupid.

[EvilElitest]

But are you having to change everything? That's the point he's making. You're reasoning seems to be:

1) The generic default setting for 4e will have no racism.
2) This lack of racism will be reflected in the rules.
3) The racial equality in the rules will force other settings to also remove any racism.

Close but not quite
2) It will be refleced in the games design, such as any world assumptions. The basic game design will that there will be no racism.
3) I'm willing to believe this. They changed the premise of FR, the've changed things in the past, they've stated that isn't their intent and they publish the setting books so i'm thinking they will do that yes. Call it a gut instinct. That is my fear certainly.


But I've yet to see any evidence of 2) so you can't derive 3).
Of course, if the 4e version of Magic Missile reads...



...then I'll agree you have a point.
you do get points for creativity i'll give you that



But I really doubt you'll have to change the mechanics if you want to play in a setting with racism. You'll still have to change the setting but that's only to be expected if, you know, you want to play in a different setting.
My complaint here is, in the generic D&D setting they shouldn't say that they are going out of their way to avoid racism with no logical in game reason. Everything in the generic D&D world will work under the assumption that everybody never judges each other by their race. Ignoring the fact this doesn't make any freaking sense (as they have provided no reason for it in game) and everything else will be based on that assumption. It is a silly assumption that i dislike being forced to work with, and work over (as everything 4E related will work under this assumption

It also goes under the other to common complaints
A) Simplistic game
B) Video game feel
C) PC centric
General for the reasons that is makes the game feel more static and less engaging. Even if the world doesn't make much sense (dragons and all that) they could at least be consistent.



I haven't jumped in precisely because of what they're pointing out.

You're being completely irrational. You're blindly interpreting everything in the absolute worst way possible--sometimes, in ways I wouldn't have thought possible.
Or maybe, and this is a bit of a stretch here, your not interpreting things that way because you don't want to. Really, if you want to prove something wrong with my interpretation fine, go ahead, but don't misquote me



It's very obvious to this (frankly, largely disinterested in this thread) bystander you've decided to hate 4E, and you'll continue to do so even if it proves to be the Perfect System, ends war, and solves world hunger.
So the times i've stated that i like elements of 4E and all of my complaints stem back to the "Big Three" issues. Disliking a changes in a system doesn't make you a troll.


I have heard of mythical monsters which reside on the internets. These strange creatures attack, seemingly without reason and they seek to destroy everything. These creatures are called trolls and they can only be killed with fire and acid.
1. yeah, i notice they try to hide them tendencies by ignoring others, not backing up points, and attempting to discreit anyone who dares to oppose their wills.
2. So when i was arguing for your side, that was what a fluke?
3. Yet again, if you have a problem with me, bring it up and back it up, don't just waste time with flames


Since that would make the USA economy colapse, the wotc staff would be deemed traitors, executed and all copies of 4e seeked and destroyed, and players would be sent to secret prisons to be tortured for years.


EE is just thinking on all those people's sake...I think.
la Resistance lives on


You forgot to add "NPCs wounded by this creature automatically die at 0HP
that is true actually, NPCs do from all i've seen die at 0 hp



But in 4th, abilities aren't really Monty Haul because they're part of the character. For example, Feats wouldn't be considered Monty Haul in 3rd, even though characters get a lot of them, because they're as much part of the character as, say, Skills or Ability Scores. Monty Haul is usually limited to Magic Items and Experience, when they're given out so frequently that they cease to be 'Rewards' and become 'Expectations.' Powers don't fit because they aren't supposed to be Rewards.
I'm going out on a limb here, but Monty Haul is just overloading the PCs with magical gear right? Gear that nobody else has and thus the PCs are overpowered and decked out? Isn't this the same with abilities?




I think maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant that a world can be 100% Points of Light, and still have nations and big cities, which fit with the Points of Light concept.

For example, the real medieval world was essentially Points of Light, where leaving town was dangerous, even though you might live in the capital of some nation. The Sword Coast of the Forgotten Realms is Points of Light, even though it boasts enormous cities.

Indeed, all that Points of Light means is that, when you aren't in a town or city, you're in a place which is potentially dangerous.
1. I don't think that is points of light, i think is nations and countries with points of light areas, not a total world. in 4E the entire world works under that assumption
2. Yes the sword coast is a points of light area, but that is the thing, just an area. As i said before i'm fine with parts of the world being points of light, it is kinda cool, but not the entire world. Even the cities in the Sword Coast have connections to hte real nations in the land.



4th Edition doesn't say that you can't have racism. You keep citing some line from one of the preview books (I can't recall exactly what it was), and saying that it means there will be no racism in the generic setting. But you aren't considering the other possible meanings of the quote:

Quote in question, p. 14 worlds and monsters

"There is not inherent racial enmity between PC races and hostile attitudes do not generally go beyond fear or lack of respect."
yet again, my question is why? They do make some sort of pretense
"They are places where people can share shelter from the dangers of a wide world"
but that wouldn't stop racism.

for good measure
Less evil fighting evil
"Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon Lords and archdevils war on each other rather than threating the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things the players can't use.. Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game run."

Now my basic complaints

1. This doesn't make sense, part of being evil is its nature to fight itself (see very long post in the matter) evil isn't getting more organized or less selfish i believe, they aren't becoming more prone to unit. So are they just sitting at home eating chips waiting in the off chance that a bunch of adventures come around with intention of killing them.
2. This goes back to PC centrisim, why wouldn't evil fight it self? Apparently, the designers want evil to forcus all of its efforts on being killed by the PCs.
3. their reasoning is faulty, we've already had plenty of editions and evil always presented itself as a challenge to the PCs while fighting each other (Which makes sense logically) so whats the problem? We can have logical evil dudes who don't devout every one of their resources to fighting half a dozen guys (if they didn't, wouldn't they kill them at first level?) and still be threating.
4. Goes for the whole video game manner, in most games (not all, WoW ironically enough) you never see evil being fighting each other and are instead focus their efforts on hindering the protagonist even when it doesn't make sense to do so, and often in an extremly stupid and unconventional manner.

For the record, ironically enough i'm one of the people who don't think taht 4E is becoming like WoW so much as any general video game. Only i think taht is the fan base they are aiming for but my beef is with the general feel of the game. people use to say 4E is becoming too anime. I first i thought so, but then i really thought about it, and realized no. Anyways so i argued against that idea, i think 4E is becoming to much like a video game. Evil vs. evil, racism, NPCs are all part of this equation, and this is what i dislike about 4E, the general video game feel that is excusable in that medium, but not in D&D



1. Maybe it means that, as Dan says, they'll get rid of the Dwarves hate Goblins and get +1 to hit them thing, and make racial enmities more setting-based.

No mention of that. If they came out and said that, i'd happily drop my complaint.


2. Maybe it means that racism is intended to be more dependent on the individual than on the race of said individual (i.e. some dwarves hate goblins, others don't).
I doubt it, we can only hope


3. Perhaps the quote is simply directed at 3rd edition veterans as a way of saying, "We changed a bunch of races which previously weren't trusted by anybody (tieflings). Now they're more normal, so that mistrust isn't necessarily there anymore."

That could work, except they didn't give an in game reason


4. Maybe you're right, and they just aren't including racism in the generic setting because they don't want to deal with it. If this is the case though, then they shouldn't explain it, because if they do, then that's more setting-specific 'fluff' in the core books, and that's exactly what you don't want.
you make a good case, however you forget one thing

If WOTC just game me the races, and let me choose how to use racism in my setting i'd be fine, however they are actively including that under the assumptions of the 4E world


But how do you know what it says about evil fighting evil? Go look at your quote on the first page of this topic. I don't understand how you can take that to mean that the books will even imply that evil doesn't fight evil. Taking your quote to the absolute extreme, the books won't mention anything about iEvil vs Evil, which is, apparently, exactly what you want. Right?
I want consistency. Evil and good are still not relative in 4E just like in 3E. Demons, devils, and other evil creatures still exist. Demons, devils, goblins, orcs, evil gods, and lots of evil creatures still exist in the generic D&D world. Now i want to know why they are not fighting each other.


I'm sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase this as a complete sentence?
certanly. 3E was in theory a very good game. Its problem was that is mechanics were so unbalanced that it couldn't support its own setting. For example, why would anyone pay for an army when you could simply hire some high level people with PC classes? Why haven't wizards taken over the world (dragons are countered, wizards are not). The world it tries to create is destroyed because of 3E's mechanical in balances. This could have been fixed yes, but WOTC didn't do so.



They mentioned it in a preview book which is intended to highlight the differences between 3e and 4e. I would highly doubt that the 3e core books will say much about evil vs. evil at all. That's kind of what their saying. It's not that there won't be evil fighting evil, it's that there won't be as much built into the 4e basic fluff as there was in the 3e basic fluff. It won't have any inherent rules effect, one way or the other. That would be silly, and a waste of space in the core books, which is what they are EXPLICITLY trying to avoid.

1. This was under the section about the assumption about the 4E world, so not just the core books
2. the 3E books only really have some basic assumptions on evil fighting evil
A) Demons and devil hate each other in DMG
B) The nature of evil in PHB
C) that orcs and other such creatures fight among themselves in MM.

And that is pretty much it. Them making a note about it seems to indicate more than saving space



You mean the fact that PCs are special, with more hit points, special abilities, not dying at 0 hp, etc?
1. They are the only dudes with their classes apperenty
2. The hit point thing
3. The world revolves in game around them.



That has nothing to do with fluff, that is all about gameplay. WotC decided that it was somewhat less than dramatic for a single 1st level orc barbarian to be a credible threat to FOUR PCs. I applaud that decision. However, the fact remained that there was a small chance that a single orc barbarian could TPK a party of 1st level characters, and was indeed a credible threat. So there are two ways to fix that: strengthen the PCs or weaken the barbarian. It is difficult weaken a 1st level character and have them not be entirely helpless.
Therefore, The PCs had to be made stronger. I used to do that by starting my players above 1st level and using multiple, weaker enemies. That has essentially now become the default situation, just labeled somewhat differently.
Wait a second, your working under the assumption that the PCs dying is a good thing. Part of the idea of combat is that you can die, it is possible. Now if a level 1 orc barbarian somehow kills the entire party, well then that is ether bad DM, bad players, or bad ideas/luck, but it fits within the rules. D&D isn't a drama based game. There are no rules for drama in the game, you don't get special powers based on drama, the game doesn't revolve around drama, it revolves around rules. Rules dilate how you effect the world. If a basic orc kills a PC, well he did so within teh rules, that is how it goes. Normally the orc wouldn't be able to pull it off, but things should still follow the rules. From an in game perspective the orc got lucky/the PCs were stupid or what not. If the PCs only die when it is dramatic, why have rules at all (personally, i don't find dying in combat at the hands of a random minion not dramatic however). only relying on drama as a defense leads to the problems in DM of the rings (or OOTS for that matter)


I have yet to actually see an official 'fluff' reason for it. It wouldn't surprise me if there never was one.
I don't like the game Exalted. Not because it is a bad game, in fact from all indications it is a very well thought out game. I don't like it out of personal case, but i don't hate it, i don't protest against it, i don't go out of the way to go against it, i just don't play it. The PCs in Exalted are super powerful right? But from all indications, there is an established in game reason for why they are powerful, the world acknowledges that. 4E has not. Why are these half dozen so powerful?



Ah, but the extent of how much fluff gets changed is not a factor. If the entirety of the fluff can be changed without altering the mechanics, then the default fluff does not matter.
Except i'm normally still using 90% of the fluff, i'm not breaking away from D&D to much. My dwarves/elves/halfings/gnomes and what not are pretty much as WOTC describes them. I don't alter the races, i just create my own world. I add my own races, histories, blatently stolen homebrews, but i still use most of the WOTC fluff. Now if i totally alterted things for the sake of a game, for example i made every one of the races fit into an Indian based game, i'd be totally going away from the fluff. However, in doing so, the qustion arises "Why get the monster fluff?" Or the books for that matter. Now when i do that, i acknowledge this and say "well this is a special occasion, i still like the consistency in the fluff, i'm choosing to ignore it out of a pet peeve. However when it ruins consistency, then we have a problem


And Fendrin, just as a general announcement, people who argue while not working under the assumption that their option> everybody else's and don't call people trolls because they don't agree tend to make better points i notice

As for WOTC reason, i think it is a bit of a misinterpretation to say that all of the customer base agrees with them, even the entire majority. Personally, i think they are trying to get people into fantasy who normally wouldn't be because of the influence of Fantasy movies and video games and thus they are trying to appeal to them by making the game work like those more.
from
EE

[fendrin]

2. the 3E books only really have some basic assumptions on evil fighting evil
A) Demons and devil hate each other in DMG
B) The nature of evil in PHB
C) that orcs and other such creatures fight among themselves in MM.
So you are complaining that they are removing something that was barely there to begin with....


1. They are the only dudes with their classes apperenty
2. The hit point thing
3. The world revolves in game around them.


Source? I have not heard this. I also don't believe it. Of course, that also sounds like a basic assumption in core 3e, what with the NPC classes...
For dramatic purposes / reduction of player frustration (leads to happier players, in general, especially among beginners). My first character ever died in the first fight. I almost stopped playing then and there. Another character also died in that fight. That player DID stop gaming, and thus D&D lost a customer.
What? No. The GAME revolves around them, as it always has. The game WORLD does NOT revolve around the PCs unless the DM wants it to.

Yes, you are right that not all D&D has been dramatic. Still, I have been in many games over the years (a few dozen, at minimum) and the only ones I have ever really enjoyed and still talk about years later are the dramatic ones.

Also, you are right that not all of the consumer base will be happy with the changes. That would be impossible. The point though is that they are not going to change the game so much that they will alienate their entire fan base. That would be very bad business.

[Starbuck_II]

You mean the fact that PCs are special, with more hit points, special abilities, not dying at 0 hp, etc?

That has nothing to do with fluff, that is all about gameplay. WotC decided that it was somewhat less than dramatic for a single 1st level orc barbarian to be a credible threat to FOUR PCs. I applaud that decision. However, the fact remained that there was a small chance that a single orc barbarian could TPK a party of 1st level characters, and was indeed a credible threat. So there are two ways to fix that: strengthen the PCs or weaken the barbarian. It is difficult weaken a 1st level character and have them not be entirely helpless.
Therefore, The PCs had to be made stronger. I used to do that by starting my players above 1st level and using multiple, weaker enemies. That has essentially now become the default situation, just labeled somewhat differently.


You do realize monsters get double starting hps just like pcs? Look at the Kobold Skirmisher: d8 hps= 16 + con= his health (27 I think).

Yes, PCs do not get better hps. Unless, the enemy is a mook, everyone uses same hp rules (except Solo creatures like dragons get x5).

[SamTheCleric]

Can someone explain to me why people think it's a bad thing that the game revolve around the PCs?

The PCs are the players around the table.
The PCs are the protagnonists in the plot.
The PCs are heroic adventurers doing good (or not so good) deeds.
The DM is there to tell the story of the PCs adventure.

I mean, all the games I've played in and DM'd the players were the focus... maybe I was doing it wrong, I wasnt tracking the HP of every commoner, chicken and kobold in the entire world, even if they'd never encounter the protagonists. :smallconfused:

[JBento]

EE's post is quite the long one - I'll see if I can give my opinion on all points and not miss any of them.

It seems to me that the lack of racism was already reflected in 3.X. Cities and whatnot had a bunch of races all thrown in in the same place, and there weren't any civil wars bacause of that. Nevertheless, the players did quite a good job at racism anyway ("oh, look, an orc - let's kill 'cause it's green and therefore evil"). Perhaps any appearance of racism will be reflected in racial feats. Perhaps the dwarf character can take a feat called Greenhater - you get +X to attack and damage rolls against orcs and goblinoids...

I believe when they say "no racism" they actually mean "no bigotry". Certainly, if I have to choose a scout between an elf and a dwarf of whom I know nothing about, I'll take the elf (actually, I'll take the dwarf, but that's just because I dislike elves - or, in 4E, maybe I dislike Eladrins). I also fail to see how does "no racism=PC centric". Could you elaborate please?

Actually, NPC's die at -1 unless the DM has any reason to do so otherwise or the players take steps to prevent it. At least for me, it's no different from 3.X - I certainly didn't roll stabilisation checks for each of the n+x orcs the PCs killed.

Why do only PC's have those abilities? Is it because NPC don't have PC classes? Well, don't they? Why? Because there are NPC classes? This was already true in 3.X. If there's another reason, I'm not aware of it and I'd be thankful if someone pointed it out to me (no joke).

On Evil vs. Evil: the text you quoted mentions nothing on "no Evil vs. Evil", not even "less Evil vs. Evil", only that they're dedicating less space to it, and, hopefully, using it on stuff people will use more. I myself am keeping both the Great Wheel and the Blood War, only because I find it's cooler. Also, Asmodeus still won't be a god (sorry about that, old chap), since I feel he makes a far more interesting character as a plotting chessmaster, skilled at Xanatos manouevres.

I must've been ninja'ed half a dozen times by now, but oh well...

[fendrin]

You do realize monsters get double starting hps just like pcs? Look at the Kobold Skirmisher: d8 hps= 16 + con= his health (27 I think).

Yes, PCs do not get better hps. Unless, the enemy is a mook, everyone uses same hp rules (except Solo creatures like dragons get x5).

Nope, I didn't realize that.

Of course, I was also talking about not dying at 0/-1, the number of special abilities PCs get, etc.

It has been stated that there is a shift from one enemy of a given level being a challenge for 4 PCs to 4 enemies of that level being a challenge.

[JBento]

Woot - finally I'm going to get some use of the 50 goblin/orc miniatures I have - all in the same encounter :smallbiggrin:

[Rutee]

Source? I have not heard this. I also don't believe it. Of course, that also sounds like a basic assumption in core 3e, what with the NPC classes...
This is EE spreading misinformation again. Monsters, by default, aren't built with classes, it's true, but something he refuses to listen to is that you are permitted to add a class to whoever you please.

[Dan_Hemmens]

This is EE spreading misinformation again. Monsters, by default, aren't built with classes, it's true, but something he refuses to listen to is that you are permitted to add a class to whoever you please.

A few years ago, the British tabloids were up in arms about schools "banning Shakespeare". In fact what had happened is that some schools had suggested that maybe Shakespeare should no longer be a mandatory part of the syllabus for 11-14 year olds (based on the strange, unsubstantiated belief that there might actually be other writers in the English language who were also worth studying).

For some people "no longer mandatory" is apparently the same as "banned". Ironically these are often the same people who say things like "I'd rather remove something I don't like than add something that isn't there."

Of course for the EE even having the option of using different PC creation rules is anathema, because the EE (like many others) views the rules as literally defining game reality, and the idea that PCs and NPCs could follow different rules is as absurd an idea as two people being simultaneously taller than each other.

[Oslecamo]

This is EE spreading misinformation again. Monsters, by default, aren't built with classes, it's true, but something he refuses to listen to is that you are permitted to add a class to whoever you please.

Actually, no.

You can only add class levels to monsters with at least 3 int, the minimum for an adventurer.

Of course, you could use one of the many awaken spells or slap the fiendish template wich grants at least 3 int.

But no "regular" cats with rogue levels for you, or vermins with barbarian levels.

[Rutee]

Actually, no.

You can only add class levels to monsters with at least 3 int, the minimum for an adventurer.

Of course, you could use one of the many awaken spells or slap the fiendish template wich grants at least 3 int.

But no "regular" cats with rogue levels for you, or vermins with barbarian levels.

Actually, we don't know that about 4th ed yet :smallbiggrin:

Not that it's not sensible in some fashion.

[Oslecamo]

Actually, we don't know that about 4th ed yet :smallbiggrin:

Not that it's not sensible in some fashion.

Ah, then I'm afraid I have bad news.

You can't add class levels to monsters in 4e, it already has been stated in one of the podcasts. Monsters have their own self improvement rules, but they are completely separate from player classes rules.

[Rutee]

Ah, then I'm afraid I have bad news.

You can't add class levels to monsters in 4e, it already has been stated in one of the podcasts. Monsters have their own self improvement rules, but they are completely separate from player classes rules.

You mean the podcast /where he then goes onto say that you can use classes if you prefer/? Good god, people, actually listen to or read things you're going to quote.

[Oslecamo]

You mean the podcast /where he then goes onto say that you can use classes if you prefer/? Good god, people, actually listen to or read things you're going to quote.

Grumble grumble, and that's why I hate podcasts, I always seem to miss parts of it... Would it be too hard for wotcs to just provide a text version of them?

Anyway, do you remember how exactly he said it would work to add class levels to monsters?

Because monsters don't have feats or character level, and from what we have seen/heard from multiclassing, what you get from a new class depends on the class you had before.

[Tobrian]

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.

Erm, if two or more groups, let's say the Mafia and the Yakuza, fight each other over territory, how is that stupid and nonsensical? The "good guys", well the non-evil guys, fight among themselves all the time, too, unless you want me to believe that every conflict in D&D boils down to "paladin vs evil bad guy". No civil wars, no uprisings against empires? No clashes between humans of various ethnical groups? No clashes between lizardmen and goblins over the same swamp? So why shouldn't various evil groups or individuums plot against each other? Maybe Malagris the evil necromancer is trying to overrun the kingdom of Nextdoor with zombies, but deep down, what he really wants is an opportunity to get back at Zakhat Sul the blackguard, the bastard who stole his girlfriend and humiliated him in front of the whole town back when they were both young. Stupid blackguard bragging all the time about his stupid big horse and his stupid big lance...:smallbiggrin:


Ah, then I'm afraid I have bad news.

You can't add class levels to monsters in 4e, it already has been stated in one of the podcasts. Monsters have their own self improvement rules, but they are completely separate from player classes rules.

I assume this means humanoids and humanoid outsiders are not considered "monsters"? Otherwise, this would lead to the odd situation that orcs and kobolds can't be rangers, or drow can't be wizards, for example. :smallconfused:
What about intelligent shapechangers like i.e. dragons and rakshasa?

Considering how many of the 4E new core races available for PCs are "freaks" (tieflings, warforged, eladrin), the definition of "monster" vs "person" is getting increasingly difficult.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Erm, if two or more groups, let's say the Mafia and the Yakuza, fight each other over territory, how is that stupid and nonsensical?

It becomes stupid and nonsensical when they fight each other over territory so much that it stops them being able to shake down shopkeepers for protection money, or otherwise do all the things that they actually need territory for.


The "good guys", well the non-evil guys, fight among themselves all the time, too, unless you want me to believe that every conflict in D&D boils down to "paladin vs evil bad guy". No civil wars, no uprisings against empires? No clashes between humans of various ethnical groups? No clashes between lizardmen and goblins over the same swamp? So why shouldn't various evil groups or individuums plot against each other? Maybe Malagris the evil necromancer is trying to overrun the kingdom of Nextdoor with zombies, but deep down, what he really wants is an opportunity to get back at Zakhat Sul the blackguard, the bastard who stole his girlfriend and humiliated him in front of the whole town back when they were both young. Stupid blackguard bragging all the time about his stupid big horse and his stupid big lance...:smallbiggrin:

Again, people are taking this way too literally.

I think the point that the "no evil vs evil" thing was supposed to address was the fact that, in standard D&D settings, there is a tendency to have all the Evil forces in the world cancel each other out: the Illithid fight the Drow in the Underdark, so the surface stays safe. The Demons fight the Devils in the Blood War, so the cosmos doesn't get overrun with the legions of hell.

The 4E designers finally realized that all this did was devote pages after page of source material to reasons for the PCs not to do anything. Which was stupid.

So instead of the status quo being "the Good Kingdoms are all getting on fine, because all the Evil races are busy fighting themselves in the wasteland" the status quo is "everything is this close to going to hell in a handcart and you, yes you, have to do something about it right now."

It's about designing a setting for people to run games in, instead of a setting for them to read splatbooks about.

[Tobrian]

(snip) there is a tendency to have all the Evil forces in the world cancel each other out: the Illithid fight the Drow in the Underdark, so the surface stays safe. The Demons fight the Devils in the Blood War, so the cosmos doesn't get overrun with the legions of hell.

The 4E designers finally realized that all this did was devote pages after page of source material to reasons for the PCs not to do anything. Which was stupid.

So instead of the status quo being "the Good Kingdoms are all getting on fine, because all the Evil races are busy fighting themselves in the wasteland" the status quo is "everything is this close to going to hell in a handcart and you, yes you, have to do something about it right now."

Excuse me, how exactly does this differ from the game we have now in 3E?? When have the Good Kingdom EVER gotten on fine? Every adventure module has the civilized world threatened or overrun by spawn of Kyuss, zombie armies, demon armies, hobgoblins or what-have-you.

Even an action setting needs some contrast to all the violence. Some safe haven for the PCs.

If I want a really dystopian setting where the PCs are the Only Thing That Stands Between Mankind or Extinction all the time, I can play Earthdawn during the demon era. Or Battlestar Galactica.


It's about designing a setting for people to run games in, instead of a setting for them to read splatbooks about.

:smallconfused: That implies one cannot run roleplaying games set against a background of a halfway stable world or region, because that's "boring". If it's not overrun by monsters all the time, there's no "action"? Sorry, that is how 12 year olds play RPGs. Is Indina Jones "boring" because there are no Nazis and Atlantean ghosts on every doorstep?

Now, I won't cry if they get rid of the Blood War, because I never liked it, good riddance. But I disliked it for other reasons.

On the other hand, things like the Blood War provided background story and atmosphere for setting like Planescape. The feeling that there are greater things going on Out There that go on even if the PCs are not directly involved. Like the Alien Mytharc episodes, the background plot, of X-Files.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Excuse me, how exactly does this differ from the game we have now in 3E?? When have the Good Kingdom EVER gotten on fine? Every adventure module has the civilized world threatened or overrun by spawn of Kyuss, zombie armies, demon armies, hobgoblins or what-have-you.

Notice that very few of those adventures involved evil fighting itself.


Even an action setting needs some contrast to all the violence. Some safe haven for the PCs.

But if the whole world is like that, it's not a safe haven, it's ... well ... the world.


If I want a really dystopian setting where the PCs are the Only Thing That Stands Between Mankind or Extinction all the time, I can play Earthdawn during the demon era. Or Battlestar Galactica.

They don't have to be The Only Thing That Stands Between Mankind And Extinction, but to my mind any setting where "hire a bunch of random guys to save our asses" is your best plan must be a pretty damn dystopian one. To me, adventurers don't make sense if you have large nations, functioning governments, and evil fighting amongst itself.


:smallconfused: That implies one cannot run roleplaying games set against a background of a halfway stable world or region, because that's "boring". If it's not overrun by monsters all the time, there's no "action"? Sorry, that is how 12 year olds play RPGs. Is Indina Jones "boring" because there are no Nazis and Atlantean ghosts on every doorstep?

I would point out that Indiana Jones is not, for the most part, set in remotely stable parts of the world.

Indiana Jones would indeed be boring if the Nazis were all sat at home, fighting the communists.


Now, I won't cry if they get rid of the Blood War, because I never liked it, good riddance. But I disliked it for other reasons.

On the other hand, things like the Blood War provided background story and atmosphere for setting like Planescape. The feeling that there are greater things going on Out There that go on even if the PCs are not directly involved. Like the Alien Mytharc episodes, the background plot, of X-Files.

The X-Files backplot episodes always annoyed me, because you could tell that they were just making that crap up as they went along.

The point is they're not saying "we're not going to do our worldbuilding properly, and you shouldn't either". They're saying "we are not going to devote time in the main rulebooks to describing stuff that isn't going to actually help you design and run adventures."

[Oslecamo]

I assume this means humanoids and humanoid outsiders are not considered "monsters"? Otherwise, this would lead to the odd situation that orcs and kobolds can't be rangers, or drow can't be wizards, for example. :smallconfused:
What about intelligent shapechangers like i.e. dragons and rakshasa?



As far as we know dragons can't shapechange anymore, unless you houserule it, since the leaked dragon hasn't got any transformation powers.

And the kobolds and hobgoblins wich have been leaked come with their own "jobs"

So we have kobold skirmishers with a "sneack attack" weaker than the rogue, we have kobold wyrmcaster with weaker spells than the wizard, kobold dragon shield with defensive abilities a la fighter, and the kobold minion wich is your typical weakling kobold wich goes down in 1 hit whitout special powers.

I believe they did this exactly because DM's monsters wouldn't be able to receive class levels, so they receive "pseudo classes" wich kinda replicate the player's powers but are more limited or/and weaker..

[Woot Spitum]

As far as we know dragons can't shapechange anymore, unless you houserule it, since the leaked dragon hasn't got any transformation powers.Not necessarily. In 3.5, only gold and silver dragons could change shape. The leaked dragon was black, and thus would not have had that ability even in 3.5. Now in the Dragonlance campaign setting, all dragons could change shape, but so far WotC has not announced any plans for Dragonlance to be supported in 4th edition.

[KIDS]

Ah, then I'm afraid I have bad news.

You can't add class levels to monsters in 4e, it already has been stated in one of the podcasts. Monsters have their own self improvement rules, but they are completely separate from player classes rules.

I'm not certain, the way I viewed it was that, since most monster abilities are arbitrarily made while within a certain number or utility (defined) range, I would be free to add my own abilities. And if I wanted to give the evil Drow Cultist Warlock's appropriately-leveled Curse of Shadows or some other debuff ability, I would be able to do so without giving him the entire class or unbalancing the game. Or maybe not, but I hope it works that way. Otherwise I like monsters having separate rules based on those brackets, just for sake of simplicity.

[EvilElitest]

So you are complaining that they are removing something that was barely there to begin with....

No, i'm saying they are taking away a perfectly viable option and making teh way the world works very single minded. Going back into the video game thing



Source? I have not heard this. I also don't believe it. Of course, that also sounds like a basic assumption in core 3e, what with the NPC classes...
For dramatic purposes / reduction of player frustration (leads to happier players, in general, especially among beginners). My first character ever died in the first fight. I almost stopped playing then and there. Another character also died in that fight. That player DID stop gaming, and thus D&D lost a customer.
1. Races and Classes p. 14, Worlds and monsters p. 13
2. I'm talking about the NPCs dying at 0, but the PCs dont
2b) death doesn't mean you lost the game. My first deal was drowing in a river, i find it so funny that i could die in such an undramatic fashion
3. in 3E NPCs and PCs can both have PC classes.




What? No. The GAME revolves around them, as it always has. The game WORLD does NOT revolve around the PCs unless the DM wants it to.
Worlds and Monsters disagrees. I mean, look at the stated reason for less evil vs. evil

Yes, you are right that not all D&D has been dramatic. Still, I have been in many games over the years (a few dozen, at minimum) and the only ones I have ever really enjoyed and still talk about years later are the dramatic ones.

That is finding drama within the game, however the game does not make drama a mechanical aspect.



Also, you are right that not all of the consumer base will be happy with the changes. That would be impossible. The point though is that they are not going to change the game so much that they will alienate their entire fan base. That would be very bad business.

Might i remind you of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it" rule?

Can someone explain to me why people think it's a bad thing that the game revolve around the PCs?

One ironically enough used by WOTC

The PCs are the players around the table.
The PCs are the protagnonists in the plot.
The PCs are heroic adventurers doing good (or not so good) deeds.
The DM is there to tell the story of the PCs adventure.
From an in game perspective, why are these guys so special? They haven't been given god powers, they aren't chosen, they just have random power. I don't mind PCs being talented and above the norm, but not unique and super powered for no reason

from
EE

[EvilElitest]

EE's post is quite the long one - I'll see if I can give my opinion on all points and not miss any of them.

It seems to me that the lack of racism was already reflected in 3.X. Cities and whatnot had a bunch of races all thrown in in the same place, and there weren't any civil wars bacause of that. Nevertheless, the players did quite a good job at racism anyway ("oh, look, an orc - let's kill 'cause it's green and therefore evil"). Perhaps any appearance of racism will be reflected in racial feats. Perhaps the dwarf character can take a feat called Greenhater - you get +X to attack and damage rolls against orcs and goblinoids...

3E core made not real assumption towards racism. Except of course that monsters all deserved to die and were awful beings but that hasn't been fixed sadly


I believe when they say "no racism" they actually mean "no bigotry". Certainly, if I have to choose a scout between an elf and a dwarf of whom I know nothing about, I'll take the elf (actually, I'll take the dwarf, but that's just because I dislike elves - or, in 4E, maybe I dislike Eladrins). I also fail to see how does "no racism=PC centric". Could you elaborate please?

Certainly, lets face it, racism is a complex issue. in 3E they made no assumption ether for or against racism, and thus DMs like myself used it in our games and made it a real world based element. However this makes the world extremly complex and gets in the way of D&D 'It has green, it must be evil and die" way of handling things, i mean look at Goblins. WOTC wants to avoid that issue because they really want to maintain the whole "monsters are fodder who die at your sword" idea, it is simply and avoids those nasty moral questions (like the simplicity of the new alignment system).


Actually, NPC's die at -1 unless the DM has any reason to do so otherwise or the players take steps to prevent it. At least for me, it's no different from 3.X - I certainly didn't roll stabilisation checks for each of the n+x orcs the PCs killed.
Technically they can still be healed after -1 and before -9 but it is ok to not care about stabilizing them just as long as the rules exist


Why do only PC's have those abilities? Is it because NPC don't have PC classes? Well, don't they? Why? Because there are NPC classes? This was already true in 3.X. If there's another reason, I'm not aware of it and I'd be thankful if someone pointed it out to me (no joke).
In 3E NPC with PC classes were ironically more common than the PCs. Now it seems like the PCs are all unique


On Evil vs. Evil: the text you quoted mentions nothing on "no Evil vs. Evil", not even "less Evil vs. Evil", only that they're dedicating less space to it, and, hopefully, using it on stuff people will use more. I myself am keeping both the Great Wheel and the Blood War, only because I find it's cooler. Also, Asmodeus still won't be a god (sorry about that, old chap), since I feel he makes a far more interesting character as a plotting chessmaster, skilled at Xanatos manouevres.
1. I agree with the Great Wheel, and Asmodeus thing by the way, which make me wonder why they changed
2. More to the point, their reason for these changes is what annoys me.


This is EE spreading misinformation again. Monsters, by default, aren't built with classes, it's true, but something he refuses to listen to is that you are permitted to add a class to whoever you please.
This is Rutee lying about spreading information. More the point, p. 13 worlds and monsters, NPcs with classes are still not on the same level as PCs


Grumble grumble, and that's why I hate podcasts, I always seem to miss parts of it... Would it be too hard for wotcs to just provide a text version of them?

Anyway, do you remember how exactly he said it would work to add class levels to monsters?

Because monsters don't have feats or character level, and from what we have seen/heard from multiclassing, what you get from a new class depends on the class you had before.
NPC still don't' follow the same rules however, different class system. Separate but totally unequal


It becomes stupid and nonsensical when they fight each other over territory so much that it stops them being able to shake down shopkeepers for protection money, or otherwise do all the things that they actually need territory for.
tell that WOTC, because apparently when two evil creatures fight each other they are physically unable to threaten the PCs


from
Some guy
EE

[Rutee]

Grumble grumble, and that's why I hate podcasts, I always seem to miss parts of it... Would it be too hard for wotcs to just provide a text version of them?

Anyway, do you remember how exactly he said it would work to add class levels to monsters?

Because monsters don't have feats or character level, and from what we have seen/heard from multiclassing, what you get from a new class depends on the class you had before.

I'm afraid not. All he said was "You can add class levels", but you raise an interesting question in how class levels will interact with their system. Hm, hope it's not done in a stupid way..

[horseboy]

Hm, hope it's not done in a stupid way..
Well, it's WotC, so I'm not holding much expectations. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[Weiser_Cain]

If I picked this up I'd be house ruling so much!

[Oslecamo]

I'm afraid not. All he said was "You can add class levels", but you raise an interesting question in how class levels will interact with their system. Hm, hope it's not done in a stupid way..

Well, they said some interesting things about it.

First they said they wanted to classes to mix better between them, so if you take a rogue and sudenly add wizard levels you'll actually end up with an arcane trickster level of power and not rogue X/wizard Y level of power.

Second they said they were sick of players diping, aka taking 1 level from this, 1 level from that. So in 4e, if you pick just 1 level of another class you'll only get weak stuff from that class, but take some more levels and you'll quickly get stronger stuff.

They specifically said that the new system doesn't suport too much multiclassing. If you take a fighter and give him rogue levels then ranger levels then paladin levels then cleric levels the final result will be very weak.


This is related to their comentary of wanting to not incentive diping anymore.

Also, who is your new avatar? Looks very nice.

[Ziren]

EE, I don't know how much time you spend on your character background, but I would sure hate it to have five pages of background story lost within the first two hours of a game (then again I'm not playing D&D so I don't know whether characters with complex background are brought forward in that system...).

About your claim that the quote would state that the world would evolve around the PCs only, that's a pretty absurd interpretation of what is written there. They say that they don't want to waste too much space about evil vs evil in their core book. Which is actually a good thing, because that information isn't supposed covered in detail in a book that should only help you to set up a game (not a scenario).

However I agree with you, when you say that you don't like that there are almost no stats on good creatures. Especially when there is less focus on evil vs. evil, there should be a way for evil adventurers to have the possibility to go on their own adventure without the need to homebrew almost everything in it.

[Rachel Lorelei]

"In 3E they had made no assumption for or against racism"?
Really?

How about those bonuses dwarves get against certain creature types?

How about gnomes and kobolds?

[fendrin]

EE,

Ask yourself the following:

1) Is 'Worlds and Monsters' talking about all possible D&D games, to the point where there will be lawsuits or roving bands of ninja enforcers forcing you to play by it's ideas?

2) Are you sure that your interpretation of what it is saying is the only possible interpretation?

Unless you can say yes to those two points, then your arguments hold no weight.

I can play how I want to. I can give monsters full class levels if I want to. I can have evil fight evil as much as I want to. I can put as much or as little racism in my games as I want. Because I am the DM and my decisions are more important than anything written in a book that was written about a system that hadn't even been finished yet. Or any other book, for that matter.

If you want you can run games in which the PCs are nobodies. If you want you can make it impossible for evil creatures to fight one another. If you want you can run boring games.

That is the fundamental rule of D&D. The D&D rules are a baseline, a framework for a DM to create an experience for the players. It is the DM, not the rulebooks, that determine whether or not the game feels like a videogame, or anime, or a MMORPG, or a book, or a movie, or a bloody lousy time.

Sometimes I feel like you are just looking for an excuse to justify how bad your 4e games are going to be. Take some responsibility. That is the DMs job.

[EvilElitest]

EE, I don't know how much time you spend on your character background, but I would sure hate it to have five pages of background story lost within the first two hours of a game (then again I'm not playing D&D so I don't know whether characters with complex background are brought forward in that system...).

Complex characters aren't limited by the system, abilities might be. Explain this point more

And for the record, for a pre warned game i normally take maybe half an hour to plan out the characters's background and stats


About your claim that the quote would state that the world would evolve around the PCs only, that's a pretty absurd interpretation of what is written there. They say that they don't want to waste too much space about evil vs evil in their core book. Which is actually a good thing, because that information isn't supposed covered in detail in a book that should only help you to set up a game (not a scenario).

Except this is a reoccurring theme throughout 4E sneak peaks. Evil vs. evil isn't happening for no other reason than its not considered directly effecting the PCs
Ignoring that evil fighting evil, even off screen will be majority effecting the world "and thus the PCs" There isn't a reason other than the PC centric ideal. Same with the PC/NPC argument



However I agree with you, when you say that you don't like that there are almost no stats on good creatures. Especially when there is less focus on evil vs. evil, there should be a way for evil adventurers to have the possibility to go on their own adventure without the need to homebrew almost everything in it.


EE,

Ask yourself the following:

1) Is 'Worlds and Monsters' talking about all possible D&D games, to the point where there will be lawsuits or roving bands of ninja enforcers forcing you to play by it's ideas?

2) Are you sure that your interpretation of what it is saying is the only possible interpretation?
1. Yes
2. Yes
1. Every WOTC published game will work under this assumption. If i play differently, i'm no longer simply using a different style, i'm activity changing the way the game is played
2. As it as been supported by every evidence i've seen (if you can provide anything that prove me wrong then please do, i'd be happy) yes




I can play how I want to. I can give monsters full class levels if I want to. I can have evil fight evil as much as I want to. I can put as much or as little racism in my games as I want. Because I am the DM and my decisions are more important than anything written in a book that was written about a system that hadn't even been finished yet. Or any other book, for that matter.

If you want you can run games in which the PCs are nobodies. If you want you can make it impossible for evil creatures to fight one another. If you want you can run boring games.

That is the fundamental rule of D&D. The D&D rules are a baseline, a framework for a DM to create an experience for the players. It is the DM, not the rulebooks, that determine whether or not the game feels like a videogame, or anime, or a MMORPG, or a book, or a movie, or a bloody lousy time.
Except yet again, in playing in any other way, i'm breaking apart from WOTC ideal of how the game should be played, and what style they supporting and considering the "right" way to play



Sometimes I feel like you are just looking for an excuse to justify how bad your 4e games are going to be. Take some responsibility. That is the DMs job.

Don't lower yourself to a strawman argument. If i have to alter the game to the point where it doesn't resemble the published product, then why did i buy the game?
from
EE



Yeah, basically. It is limiting and close minded

[Vuzzmop]

"In 3E they had made no assumption for or against racism"?
Really?

How about those bonuses dwarves get against certain creature types?

How about gnomes and kobolds?

Dwarvesd get bonuses to those races because their society trains them in militias primarily against these races. Why does everyone get all tersty whenever conflict between species gets mentioned?:smallconfused: :smallannoyed:

[Disdain]

Agreed with EE. I'm confused as to what they're trying to attempt by doing that. Setting up moral frameworks for younger kids? I don't know.

[an kobold]

"There is no inherit racial enmity between PC races, and hostile attitudes do not generally go beyond fear or lack of respect"


This does not inherently mean there is no racism. This just means there are no RaHoWa's between the player races. No race is treated as property, but races can be feared and treated with disrespect. And to bring another quote into play, let me bring your attention to a paragraph linked to actual crunch, not a collection of promotional material.



Centuries of other races' distrust and outright hatred have made tieflings self-reliant and often too willing to live up to the stereotypes imposed on them.




http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh157/koboldkommando/tieflingdescription.jpg

[fendrin]

1. Yes
2. Yes
1. Every WOTC published game will work under this assumption. If i play differently, i'm no longer simply using a different style, i'm activity changing the way the game is played
2. As it as been supported by every evidence i've seen (if you can provide anything that prove me wrong then please do, i'd be happy) yes
1. I said all possible settings, not all WotC published settings. So what if you actively change the way the game is played? That's pretty common with D&D.
2. That's very egotistical of you. You know, most people would concede that they might be wrong. I know I might be, though I doubt it. I (and others) have presented plenty of evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge it.


Except yet again, in playing in any other way, i'm breaking apart from WOTC ideal of how the game should be played, and what style they supporting and considering the "right" way to play
So what? It's not like they have ninja-pirate death squads that will hunt you down for playing against the supposed "WotC Ideal". It's your game, play it how you want to.


Don't lower yourself to a strawman argument. If i have to alter the game to the point where it doesn't resemble the published product, then why did i buy the game?
1) It isn't a strawman argument at all. I'm stating a fact about how I feel. You might want to consider doing a modicum of research into a term before you use it.
2) Using the bloodwar is not a significant deviation. In fact, it is so minor as to be negligible to what makes 4e different from 3e. The mechanical changes are much more significant. If you want to use an old setting or one of your own design, more power to you. That doesn't stop it from being D&D, though. Heck, I've played in games that were more homebrew than published. They were still D&D.

[EvilElitest]

1. I said all possible settings, not all WotC published settings. So what if you actively change the way the game is played? That's pretty common with D&D.
2. That's very egotistical of you. You know, most people would concede that they might be wrong. I know I might be, though I doubt it. I (and others) have presented plenty of evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

1. But the default assumption of D&D shouldn't be one very specific setting. That is waht settings are for
2. What evidence? All of the evidence i've showed indicates a move away from Vermilitude. Hell, take Worlds and Monsters section on how the world should be.
3. Sure i could also change Diplomicy and wizards in 3E, that doesn't make the rules any less bad


So what? It's not like they have ninja-pirate death squads that will hunt you down for playing against the supposed "WotC Ideal". It's your game, play it how you want to.

One particular style of play has been singled out and chosen as the "best"
It is the way 4E is being designed to be played as. If you don't like it, well that sucks. I don't like this attitude and if the game supports one play style, yes it does hinder the way i play the game



1) It isn't a strawman argument at all. I'm stating a fact about how I feel. You might want to consider doing a modicum of research into a term before you use it.
2) Using the bloodwar is not a significant deviation. In fact, it is so minor as to be negligible to what makes 4e different from 3e. The mechanical changes are much more significant. If you want to use an old setting or one of your own design, more power to you. That doesn't stop it from being D&D, though. Heck, I've played in games that were more homebrew than published. They were still D&D.

1. Yes it is a strawman argument, your claiming that my problem arises from lack of flexibility, not an inherent problem in the design itself
2. It isn't about hte bloodwar damnit. My problem doesn't come from there removal part of the game, not on this particular issue. My issue is them taking away a focus on evil vs. evil in 4E, no longer supporting that idea. I"d be fine except why they are doing it. It isn't because evil is unifying, or becoming a more cohesive force (which would make sense if they did that, considering we have evil paladins now). The only reason is that they don't considered valuable for the PCs. And i find this silly.
A) This doesn't make sense for evil not to fight evil. Part of evil's nature
B) It makes the world lack consistency and verisimilitude, the video game aspect i've mentioned disliking and is hte main source of my complaint with 4E
C) They consider it unimportant, and i disagree. i feel evil beings having foes and goals other than the PCs is important, and makes them feel more realistic and fleshed out. I mean, PCs serving both sides, making them fight each other, i mean come on, it makes sense, why take it away
from
EE

[fendrin]

EE,

You are failing to distinguish between the 'default setting' and 'the only way to play'. Address that and all the other problems disappear in a puff of logic.

Also, seeing you seem to refuse to do even an iota of research into the terminology that you are (ab)using, so I will explain it to you. Why I bother trying, I don't know. Stubbornness, I guess.

A straw man argument follows the following form:

Person 1 claims p.
Person 2 argues against q as if Person 1 had claimed q.

Person 2 has made a straw man argument (q).

First of all, I made a statement, not an argument. That right there invalidates your claim that I made a straw man argument. Beyond that, I was reacting as if you had made a claim that you hadn't, thus even if it was an argument, it wouldn't have been a straw man.

Clear?

[Rutee]

Another possible form of the STrawman argument is as follows

Person A makes arguments p, q, o, and n
Person B argues against stance q to the exclusion of p, o, and n, treating q as the only important part of the argument.

I don't know why I'm bothering.

[EvilJames]

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.

It hardly seems contrived, but then I'm not sure when that became how it happened. But then I never got into 3rd ed much. In 2nd ed the war was started (at least allegedly) by the Yugoloths as a means to manipulate the forces of evil and keep the two sides busy while they seized control of the Lower planes. Afterwards they would raze the multiverse and set it on the true path (one of evil in it's purest form) It was also implyed that The Lord of the 9th( Asmodeus?) has been around since before the multiverse began and seeks to see it end (another possible reason for the Blood War) Only one of the Lords of the 9 is a fallen Celestial the rest are promoted Devils.

The three primary fiendish races were otherwise manifestaions of there respective planes.

[Artemician]

EE, I have two questions for you.

Firstly,What is so utterly specific about the 4e setting, that can't be easily removed, with less effort than what exists in 3.5 currently?

Secondly, if Game designers put a focus on Evil versus Evil, aren't they too pidgeonholing those people who don't want to see Evil versus Evil?

[fendrin]

Another possible form of the STrawman argument is as follows

Person A makes arguments p, q, o, and n
Person B argues against stance q to the exclusion of p, o, and n, treating q as the only important part of the argument.
Yes, you are right that there is a 'selection' form as well as the more commonly known 'creation' or 'modification'* form I detailed. I was hesitant to mention it because partial responses are typical of forum posts, and can be easily mistaken for the 'selection' form of the straw man fallacy. Considering how abused the term is, I didn't want to add fuel to the fire...

*'modification' is just like what I previously posted, except that instead of q, a modification of p is attacked, often referred to as p'


I don't know why I'm bothering.
Love of truth and wisdom? A desire to educate others? Just a few guesses. :smallwink:

Just to be clear (because it's gotten me in trouble before) I've put in detail that I know you don't need, but I've added it for the sake others in the thread that might not know it.

[Rutee]

Yes, you are right that there is a 'selection' form as well as the more commonly known 'creation' or 'modification'* form I detailed. I was hesitant to mention it because partial responses are typical of forum posts, and can be easily mistaken for the 'selection' form of the straw man fallacy. Considering how abused the term is, I didn't want to add fuel to the fire....

That's.. an extremely important point, especially with how much the term's been thrown around lately. :smallconfused:

[an kobold]

1. Every WOTC published game will work under this assumption. If i play differently, i'm no longer simply using a different style, i'm activity changing the way the game is played
2. As it as been supported by every evidence i've seen (if you can provide anything that prove me wrong then please do, i'd be happy) yes


Okay, let's take this. "Every WotC published game" will work under the assumptions of points of light with a focus away from evil versus evil. Now, unless I have missed some big news, WotC still owns the rights to Eberron and plans to bring the setting up to date with 4ed mechanics. Undoubtedly there will be some adventure modules set in Eberron. Now, unless I am sorely mistaken once again, the continent of Eberron is far from "points of light" and conflicts between evil, world changing powers have shaped the setting in the past and continue to do so while the PCs are present, at least in its current form. There were rumors to advance the time line two years, but those were scrapped, a la:



We've decided that the 4E Eberron Campaign Setting will not advance the timeline of the setting. The campaign starting year will still be 998YK, and we won't present major changes to the setting except as necessary to bring 4E elements into the world.


So, if Wizards is going to maintain Eberron in its present form, they will have to keep the ideas of established nations and clashes amongst evil. This means that no, not all material WotC will be publishing for 4e will work under the assumptions of "evil vs. evil is no longer true" and that civilization has degraded to points of light. Now, do you really think that WotC, as a corporation whose purpose is to make money, will write setting generic modules so that Eberron players will have to go about the process of "activity changing the way the game is played" to fit it into their campaign? Or are they going to write games and modules in such a way to work with most styles of play? As a corporation seeking to please as many people as possible so it can make as much money as possible, WotC is most likely going to choose the latter.

[fendrin]

That's.. an extremely important point, especially with how much the term's been thrown around lately. :smallconfused:

Every once in a while I get lucky and say something significant. :smallamused:

[Dan_Hemmens]

Dwarvesd get bonuses to those races because their society trains them in militias primarily against these races. Why does everyone get all tersty whenever conflict between species gets mentioned?:smallconfused: :smallannoyed:

I get testy when conflict between species is hard-wired into the game mechanics because I don't usually run the game in the default setting.

If my Orcs are living in the Desert of the Howling Moon and the Dwarves live in the Mountains of Deep Yearning over ten thousand miles away, most Dwarves never setting eyes on an Orc as long as they live, I don't want Dwarves to have a to-hit bonus against Orcs built into the system.

It goes double for gnomes and lizardfolk. At least Dwarves vs Orcs has the weight of tradition behind it. Gnomes versus Lizardfolk just comes out of nowhere, it's like the Gnomes have been training to fight the Kobolds for position of "Most irritating race of comical tinkers" or something.

[RukiTanuki]

Question: Why couldn't one just say "in my campaign world, the Blood War is still a significant ongoing event" and be done with it? (I won't be taking "Because that's not what's written in the book" as an answer.)

It seems easier to emphasize a conflict that's understated (note: NOT ABSENT, just understated... go read the paragraph again), than it is to ignore one that's closely integrated into the default setting. In which case, cutting back on its impact on the entire setting is a good thing... particularly since you still have several books detailing for you what would need to change if you want to put it back. :)

I can't acknowledge why this is a problem (particularly since it is beneficial to me) unless I understand why someone can't just immediately handwave it back.

[EvilElitest]

EE,

You are failing to distinguish between the 'default setting' and 'the only way to play'. Address that and all the other problems disappear in a puff of logic.

WotC has out right stated the way they expect the game to be played, and have formed the generic assumption of the setting around that. A rather inconsistent setting that only gives more weight to the 4E is like a video game approach


Also, seeing you seem to refuse to do even an iota of research into the terminology that you are (ab)using, so I will explain it to you. Why I bother trying, I don't know. Stubbornness, I guess.

You've claimed the problems arises from an apparent inability of me too work beyond the core rules. Which isn't the case, the problem arises from WotC video game like attitude and disregard for consistency Hence my complaint


A straw man argument follows the following form:

Person 1 claims p.
Person 2 argues against q as if Person 1 had claimed q.

Person 2 has made a straw man argument (q).

Ok, i claim that the problem is WotC's assumption for the generic world
You claimed my problem is my play style

Which is a straw man argument, and don't do that, because other wise your points have been generally more productive

A
nother possible form of the STrawman argument is as follows

Person A makes arguments p, q, o, and n
Person B argues against stance q to the exclusion of p, o, and n, treating q as the only important part of the argument.

I don't know why I'm bothering.
Which is why i try to respond to every point




EE, I have two questions for you.

Firstly,What is so utterly specific about the 4e setting, that can't be easily removed, with less effort than what exists in 3.5 currently?

Secondly, if Game designers put a focus on Evil versus Evil, aren't they too pidgeonholing those people who don't want to see Evil versus Evil?
1. A core assumption of the rules. 4E now has a pretty specific idea of how the typical D&D would 'should' work. Evil vs. evil doesn't happen very often (no reason given) PCs and NPCs follow different rules, the entire existing world works under the "Points of light" assumption. It is part of the 4E assumption and every product they produce works under that assumption evil doesn't often fight other evils because they don't consider it important. They don't offer a reason for why evil doesn't fight evil, and this (along with other things) lends credence to the feeling that 4E is basically a giant hack and slash video game style creation. That style of play being supported and any other (which can be played with 3E) not being is the issue
3E had very little assumption on how the generic world worked out, you have a cosmology, gods, races, classes, magic/items and um, monsters. No generic assumption on how the world is played, evil fights evil because that fits with the games nature of evil.
2. Here is the thing, evil as defined by D&D is something that makes perfect sense, evil unlike good, has not moral reason not to fight itself. As the main principle of evil is selfishness, and when other evils people conflict with that, nothing stops them from fighting. I want consistency, and i want legitimate reasons for any change in the game. In 3E, evil has plenty of reasons to fight evil. If you don't want to make that the focus of your game, that is perfectly possible without breaking any rules, because nothing stops evil from fighting your characters and fighting itself. As of such however, i see no legitimate reasons to make evil not fight evil, evils isn't becoming more organized or anything. It is just another of hte Pcs centric ideas




Okay, let's take this. "Every WotC published game" will work under the assumptions of points of light with a focus away from evil versus evil. Now, unless I have missed some big news, WotC still owns the rights to Eberron and plans to bring the setting up to date with 4ed mechanics. Undoubtedly there will be some adventure modules set in Eberron. Now, unless I am sorely mistaken once again, the continent of Eberron is far from "points of light" and conflicts between evil, world changing powers have shaped the setting in the past and continue to do so while the PCs are present, at least in its current form. There were rumors to advance the time line two years, but those were scrapped, a la:
1. I was referring to non setting specific games, if in one setting evil didn't fight evil i'd be fine (through a reason would be nice). the annoyance is that D&D core is working off this assumption
2. Ebberon is an exception yes, i used it as a counter to titanium Dragon's claim that points of light is already the base assumption for D&D



So, if Wizards is going to maintain Eberron in its present form, they will have to keep the ideas of established nations and clashes amongst evil. This means that no, not all material WotC will be publishing for 4e will work under the assumptions of "evil vs. evil is no longer true" and that civilization has degraded to points of light. Now, do you really think that WotC, as a corporation whose purpose is to make money, will write setting generic modules so that Eberron players will have to go about the process of "activity changing the way the game is played" to fit it into their campaign? Or are they going to write games and modules in such a way to work with most styles of play? As a corporation seeking to please as many people as possible so it can make as much money as possible, WotC is most likely going to choose the latter.
Yet again, specific setting, which i may or may not play (I do but that isn't hte point)
FR on the other hand, has been changed to suit 4E sadly

RukiTanuki, as i said, the blood war isn't hte problem here, the problem here is WotC reasons for limiting evil vs. evil, and complaints against 4E seeming PC Centric, inconsistent, an video game styled

from
EE

[fendrin]

Warning: this post is ridiculously long. I apologize in advance.


WotC has out right stated the way they expect the game to be played, and have formed the generic assumption of the setting around that. A rather inconsistent setting that only gives more weight to the 4E is like a video game approach
The setting. Singular. Not all settings. You make this point later. I'll be using it in a moment...
To save on typing, I'm going to refer to that singular setting (proto-setting, really, but whatever) as PoL. I'm sure you can figure out why.


You've claimed the problems arises from an apparent inability of me too work beyond the core rules. Which isn't the case, the problem arises from WotC video game like attitude and disregard for consistency Hence my complaint
No, I've claimed that you seem to think the singular setting that happens to come in the core books will fundamentally alter your games, to the point that you cannot change it without re-working the system to the point of it not being D&D anymore. Later (it's coming...) you claim that other publication that are setting specific to other settings will not follow ideas in PoL. If they can do it, why can't you?


Ok, i claim that the problem is WotC's assumption for the generic world
You claimed my problem is my play style
No, I made a claim that what you claimed was necessary to have a consistent world, taken to the logical extreme, would utterly destroy gameplay.


Which is a straw man argument, and don't do that, because other wise your points have been generally more productive Nope, still not a straw man. Logical extremity. Big difference. One is an evasion, the other is a confrontation.


Which is why i try to respond to every pointIt does lead to posts that are extremely long though. Like this one.


1. A core assumption of the rules.
A core assuption of PoL, not the rules. If it was a core assumption of the rules, how could they change it for Eberron, as you say below (almost there...)?


4E now has a pretty specific idea of how the typical D&D would 'should' work.
As did 3e... It actually hasn't changed much.

Evil vs. evil doesn't happen very often (no reason given)
Just like in core 3e...

PCs and NPCs follow different rules,
Also in core 3e... or have you forgotten about NPC classes and NPC WBL?

the entire existing world works under the "Points of light" assumption.
If by 'the entire existing world' you mean the sample setting in the core books, which I have been calling PoL, then yes. Of course. Tautology, even.

It is part of the 4E assumption and every product they produce works under that assumption evil doesn't often fight other evils because they don't consider it important.
I love the way you used 'works', the past tense, as if you had read them already... can I borrow your Tardis? Seriously, though, 3e core didn't deal with evil vs. evil (by your own admission) and yet they still published several products that touched on the topic. Why can't the same be true for 4e? Unless of course you do have a Tardis... I'm so jealous...

They don't offer a reason for why evil doesn't fight evil
Because they also don't say it can't, just that there is less of an emphasis on it... in PoL.

and this (along with other things) lends credence to the feeling that 4E is basically a giant hack and slash video game style creation.
1) I've played plenty of games with Evil vs. Evil violence. So how does not emphasizing that make 4e a video game? And hack and slash? H'n'S has always been a play style choice. I've seen freeform H'n'S and I've seen people roleplay Munchkin (http://www.sjgames.com/munchkin/game/). System doesn't determine hack'n'slash.

That style of play being supported and any other (which can be played with 3E) not being is the issue
This is getting a little... redundant. I'm going to say it once more, and that's it: 4e does not determine the play style in your games. That's entirely up to the DM and the players.

3E had very little assumption on how the generic world worked out, you have a cosmology, gods, races, classes, magic/items and um, monsters. No generic assumption on how the world is played, evil fights evil because that fits with the games nature of evil.
But it's just one setting! By your own admission it can be changed. So what exactly is the problem?

2. Here is the thing, evil as defined by D&D is something that makes perfect sense, evil unlike good, has not moral reason not to fight itself. As the main principle of evil is selfishness, and when other evils people conflict with that, nothing stops them from fighting.
4e is the same as 3e, in this respect.

I want consistency, and i want legitimate reasons for any change in the game.
There is a legitimate reason for the changes. Just because they are game play or business-oriented instead of game world in origin does not make them any less legitimate.

In 3E, evil has plenty of reasons to fight evil. If you don't want to make that the focus of your game, that is perfectly possible without breaking any rules, because nothing stops evil from fighting your characters and fighting itself. As of such however, i see no legitimate reasons to make evil not fight evil, evils isn't becoming more organized or anything. It is just another of hte Pcs centric ideasOr, the inverse:
In 4e, evil has plenty of reasons to fight evil. If you want to make that the focus of your game, that is perfectly possible without breaking any rules, because nothing stops evil from fighting your characters and fighting itself. As of such however, i see no legitimate reasons to make evil fighting evil the focus of your games, as it's just another one of those things that pulls focus away from the PCs.

1. I was referring to non setting specific games, if in one setting evil didn't fight evil i'd be fine (through a reason would be nice). the annoyance is that D&D core is working off this assumption
Again, if you can change it, where is the problem? No one is forcing you to play that way.

2. Ebberon is an exception yes, i used it as a counter to titanium Dragon's claim that points of light is already the base assumption for D&D
Here we are! The point you make that defeats so many of your other points. If it can be done in Eberron, it can be done in any setting, even one of your own devising. Simple as that. Thank you for making my part in this little... hmm.. what to call it? debate? no, that's not really quite right...

Yet again, specific setting, which i may or may not play (I do but that isn't hte point) Again, every game is setting specific, even if it doesn't use a specific setting. The setting is whatever the DM makes it.

FR on the other hand, has been changed to suit 4E sadly Yeah, I saw that... I might actually play FR now. Before, I wouldn't touch it with the proverbial 10' pole.

[Artemician]

Let's go back and summarize the walls of text again, shall we?


EE said:

The Core Assumption of 4e is Points of Light and no Evil Fighting Evil.
3e did not have this assumption.


Fendrin said:

By your own admission, there are settings that can remove this core assumption, such as Eberron. So if they can do it, why can't you? These assumptions only belong in 4e FR. Other settings may not share these assumptions, such as the aforementioned Eberron.

*hint hint, no walls of text please hint hint*

[Rutee]

Seconded. Walls of Text are still Walls.

[fendrin]

I am sorry. I'm good at logic, but not so good at eloquence...

[Rutee]

It's cool; Brevity is the soul of wit. Therefore, when I do battle in the Arena of the Mind, I do battle unarmed ._.

[EvilElitest]

Warning: this post is ridiculously long. I apologize in advance.

They all eventually become that



No, I've claimed that you seem to think the singular setting that happens to come in the core books will fundamentally alter your games, to the point that you cannot change it without re-working the system to the point of it not being D&D anymore. Later (it's coming...) you claim that other publication that are setting specific to other settings will not follow ideas in PoL. If they can do it, why can't you?


Because the generic game should have any specific assumptions when it comes to setting. I should work under the assumption that there isn't any specific setting/way to play the game. If you enjoy a specific way to play, that is what settings are for. If WotC made a whole new setting that worked under the PC super powers, under the points of light, then i wouldn't mind. It is a specific style for a specific world. Much like Exalted, it targets a very specific group/audience. However, the generic D&D assumption shouldn't be specific in setting/other things, it should exist to please all the styles that could be supported in 3E that can make the change. They shouldn't isolate unless they absolutely have to (see wizards).

Now in all non setting specific products produced by WotC, the assumption will be that the entire world is totally controlled by evil except for a few small good guy settlements. The world (not the game) literally revolves around the players, consistency is thrown to hell, ect.

Now evil vs. evil is no longer going to be supported (much) in 4E. Now my question is, why not? I've had fun with it, it makes sense considering the definition of evil, it builds consistency. I want to know why the orcs and goblins are no longer squabbling over territory, why the Zhents aren't having religious conflicts, why is Demogorgon and Orcus lighting up on each other? If evil exists, i want consistency. Why wouldn't these forces, who have good reason to fight and hate each other, not doing so? The only reasons is because WotC has apparently decided that it isn't important to game, and thus will no longer be a focus on the game. As of such, this (and other decisions i disagree with) will be the assumption for D&D core and not setting specific games (and some settings, like FR sadly). I find this extremely upsetting and almost insulting

I'm not opposed to change. I argued for the edition change earlier. I know 3E had problems. Some changes in 4E were annoying and i felt could have been handled better, but i didn't really mind. For example, wizards and clerics being changed. The wizards and clerics of 3E could be balanced, we've seen homebrew versions of this happening. But it was easier for WotC to change the concept of the wizards in general. That was a change i personally disliked, but i can live and most importantly i can understand the change. It also seems to have been handled rather well

What pisses me off is these unnecessary changes that both are annoying and hinder, leading to the video game simplification aspect 4E is embodying. If they are going to change something, i want the assumption that it improves the game. I don't feel that destroying consistency for the sake PC centrism. I don't want this to be a core assumption. If there was a specific setting deal, then i wouldn't mind, if i liked that setting i'd play it, if i didn't like that setting i wouldn't play it. However now the game itself is working like a specific setting.




It does lead to posts that are extremely long though. Like this one.

Lesser of two evils, i'd rather have a massive post than leave points un countere.



A core assuption of PoL, not the rules. If it was a core assumption of the rules, how could they change it for Eberron, as you say below (almost there...)?
1. Personally i don't want of a list of rules without fluff. I just want fluff that can suit multiple play styles. The assumption of the 'typical' D&D world is one of inconsistency
2. We don't know that for Ebberon, we can only guess/hope
3. Even so, that only works for one specific setting. Now lets presume i don't play Ebberon for other reasons


As did 3e... It actually hasn't changed much.

Not really, 3E has very little in terms of specific setting. Both points of lights or nation/political could work out fine


Just like in core 3e...
Um what are you talking about. Evil vs. evil is a real point in 3E
1. Orcs fight amog themselves for power/control
2. Gobliniods fight both each other and others due to there temperamental nature, bullying, religion an might makes right ideal.
3. All of the above compete with each other for land/food/grudges
4. Demons fight each other because they are Chaotic Evil, prone to rage and hatred, as part of their cruel and chaotic nature they destroy each other just as much
5. Devils plot and scheme with each other for power, souls and prestige
6. Vecna hates Kas due to an ancient grudge (though the latter is only a vistage now)
7. The drow scheme and fight with each other because of their societies demands and nature
8. Lolth and the other drow gods fight with each other for power and control
9. Beasts in the underdark kill each other for survival
10. Powerful evil races (Mind Flayers, Abloths, Drow ect) often destroy or enslave lesser evil races
11. Evil groups fight each other for power or prestige
12. And of course, know the nature of evil, it makes perfect sense for evil to fight themselves. In fact it makes it expected. So why wouldn't mercenaries betray their boss for cash, or evil nations attack each other for look, or rival bandit Gangs fight for loot.
i sai 3E doesn't use up much space with evil vs. evil, not that they don't use it. Want more examples? How about some Ebberon or Fr specific?

Also in core 3e... or have you forgotten about NPC classes and NPC WBL?

Every NPC class works as a normal but lesser class, nothing stops NPCs from having PC classes. In fact, more NPC had PC classes then PCs did (because there are only half a dozen or so PCs)




Because they also don't say it can't, just that there is less of an emphasis on it... in PoL.

In game why? Why wouldn't evil fight evil, according to the definition of D&D evil it makes perfect sense.


1) I've played plenty of games with Evil vs. Evil violence. So how does not emphasizing that make 4e a video game? And hack and slash? H'n'S has always been a play style choice. I've seen freeform H'n'S and I've seen people roleplay Munchkin (http://www.sjgames.com/munchkin/game/). System doesn't determine hack'n'slash.

The PC centric attitude and lack of consistency in exchange for PC empowerment (and i mean Empowerment in the owning everything at first level sense) yes.



This is getting a little... redundant. I'm going to say it once more, and that's it: 4e does not determine the play style in your games. That's entirely up to the DM and the players.

Not if i work under WotC assumptions of how the game should be played and the world should work (Worlds and Monsters, world section, p. 13-23)


4e is the same as 3e, in this respect.


Then why isn't Evil fighting itself? It has a good reason to, and it isn't getting more organized or anything


There is a legitimate reason for the changes. Just because they are game play or business-oriented instead of game world in origin does not make them any less legitimate.
That isn't a reason, that is only a justification, nor does it make it right.


Or, the inverse:
In 4e, evil has plenty of reasons to fight evil. If you want to make that the focus of your game, that is perfectly possible without breaking any rules, because nothing stops evil from fighting your characters and fighting itself. As of such however, i see no legitimate reasons to make evil fighting evil the focus of your games, as it's just another one of those things that pulls focus away from the PCs.
1. Not in the default assumption of D&D. Not inverse reason
2. That is the thing, consistency and evil fighting evil doesn't take the focus away from the PCs.


Again, if you can change it, where is the problem? No one is forcing you to play that way.

If i break from 4E's assumptions, then the question comes up, why play the game at all? I like D&D, i don't like the changes. This is like there diplomacy system, nothing stops me from changing it, it doesn't make it good


Here we are! The point you make that defeats so many of your other points. If it can be done in Eberron, it can be done in any setting, even one of your own devising. Simple as that. Thank you for making my part in this little... hmm.. what to call it? debate? no, that's not really quite right...

1. Do i detect bitterness?
2. We haven't seen the changes in Ebberon yet
3. Wait, to get support for consistency in 4E I have to ether homebrew or play Ebberon? WFT? Settings are for specific styles of play, Points of light/PC Centric should be a specific setting. Not a core assumption. I shouln't have to turn to Ebberon just to play the way i want when it was possible to play both under 3E core.
Also Ebberon already had the whole PC centric thing going for it, i doubt the game will turn out as something i'd like



Yeah, I saw that... I might actually play FR now. Before, I wouldn't touch it with the proverbial 10' pole.

1. And most of the FR fans won't touch the new version.
2. The old FR has consistency and was well developed. That wasn't your thing, nothing forced you to play it because it was a setting, not a game design's core assumption

Like i said, Settings exist for specific play styles with the D&D system, points of light should be its own setting if they want to support that
from
EE

[Artemician]

EE, you seem to be of the opinion that the default rules should be completely devoid of *any* fluff whatsoever, since any fluff put in would, in fact, pidgeonhole players into the setting in which the fluff describes. Am I wrong?

That's not an unreasonable opinion to take. However, you have to recognize something. 3e Greyhawk had many, many more specific assumptions and fluff than what we've seen in 4e so far. 3e Greyhawk *practically forces you* into its setting, much like what you seem to be complaining about in 4e FR. PCs *must* have magic gear. Wizards rule the Universe. Life, Death and Rebirth is all dictated by the complicated Planar-soul system. The nature of Outsiders, the realms in the Underdark, the Blood War. All of these are awfully specific examples of setting elements that have a dramatic impact on how the game plays.

And that hasn't stopped you from playing it in a way different from how the default assumptions were designed, has it?

If anything, it'l be easier to houserule 4e, given how they've been cutting down and streamlining the rules. So what's the fuss?

[fendrin]

Ok, I'm going to try this whole brevity thing...

EE, PoL is a specific setting*. It just happens to be he one that comes with the core books. It is no more required than Greyhawk was in 3e.

I'm fairly sure that non-setting specific books will be, by definition, non-setting specific. That means they will be usable in settings other than PoL, by the way.

Wait, you're back to the 'The world revolves around the players' straw man? That was shot down a long time ago. Did you think it would work this time? That's insane**.

PCs do not 'own' everything at first level. A great wyrm will still wipe the floor with them without even blinking. Exaggeration will not work with me, so please stop trying it, for sanity's** sake.

What 'support' does evil vs. evil need? Specifically, what was in 3e core that isn't going to be in 4e core that you need to have one orc bash another over the head with heavy blunt object? Or what in 4e will prevent it?

* Like the 3e core rendition of Greyhawk, PoL is only a proto-setting. The basics are there, but it is not fully defined, so DMs can fill in the gaps as they see fit. Such as with warring tribes of orcs. Or peaceful farmer orcs. Regardless, the above point remains the same.

** "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results." - Rita Mae Brown, (Sudden Death, Bantam Books, New York, 1983, p. 68)

Ok, I still failed at brevity. Still, if you feel I missed some crucial point, bring it up specifically and I will respond to it specifically.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

It's cool; Brevity is the soul of wit. Therefore, when I do battle in the Arena of the Mind, I do battle unarmed ._.

Brevity or not, you might want to elaborate on how this unarmed combat is conducted, lest people confuse you with a Monk.:smalltongue:

[Muyten]

EE
I still don't understand why you are under the impression that evil will not be fighting evil in 4E. What they've said is that they will not focus on it.
That just means that there wont be much material on evil fighting evil not that it's not happening just as much as it was in 3.X.

Also take a look at this fey Article:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080311&authentic=true

It surely looks like those EVIL fomorians are fighting other EVIL fomorians and that's from WOTCs own webpage for crying out loud.

[an kobold]

1. I was referring to non setting specific games, if in one setting evil didn't fight evil i'd be fine (through a reason would be nice). the annoyance is that D&D core is working off this assumption
2. Ebberon is an exception yes, i used it as a counter to titanium Dragon's claim that points of light is already the base assumption for D&D



By your logic, either Eberron cannot be a counter to Titanium Dragon's claim that points of light is already the base assumption in 3.x because it is only setting specific, or it's a perfectly valid example about how points of light and "evil vs. evil is no longer true/no longer supported (much)/whatever you'll change your claim to next" is not the base assumption for D&D 4th ed. Make a decision.

And despite your claim that we can only "hope/guess" about the changes in the Eberron setting, we know for certain that the timeline is not advancing. Which in all likelihood means that the nations and competing, evil powers that be will both be around come its 4 ed. incarnation, just with tieflings and dragonborn amongst the population.

Besides, if the quote given about Eberron from the developers' blog can only give us hopes/guesses, what does that mean for the quote you are basing your awfully concrete argument on?


For instance, where the heck are you pulling this from?

I want to know why the orcs and goblins are no longer squabbling over territory, why the Zhents aren't having religious conflicts, why is Demogorgon and Orcus lighting up on each other?



Especially since both Worlds and Monsters and Races and Classes are essentially collections of static, non-updating developer blogs. For all we know, "Less Evil Fighting Evil" could mean anything from less splatbooks such as Fiend Folio to make way for the multiple core books being published to an actual change in the mechanics. A change that frankly, would not be that drastic, as I've never heard of a Blackguard, demon, or devil with "smite evil" as one of its special attacks. Plenty of "smite good," though.

[GutterRunner]

Quoting the origninal qoute again:

"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...."

If this means that they're not giving as much book space to general evil fighting evil, because it generally isn't of much use to players playing good characters, then I think that's ok. Even if they actually don't mention it other than to say "bad guys don't necesserilly like all the other bad guys". I'd disagree with them in that stuff about evil fighting evil is something players CAN'T use, finding evil factions to play off against each other may be one of the best ways to slow down the comming of the end of the world while you fix it or whatever. But in general, filling books mainly with content (both fluff and crunch) that they believe will be used is a good thing.

If they're doing what EvilElitist believes, in that they're assuming that evil doesn't actually fight other evil in order to foucs on the PCs more (both the evil and the game focusing on the PCs more), then I think that is bad. Evil should fight against other evil, because it doesn't care who it fights against. If they took the steps to remove Cyrics history where he attacked Bane, Bhaal and Mask in order to obtain god-hood in FR, and changed Ebberon so all the evil factions got along well, just because they didn't want to focus on those actions, then that would be really stupid.

[fendrin]

Quoting the origninal qoute again:

"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...."

If this means that they're not giving as much book space to general evil fighting evil, because it generally isn't of much use to players playing good characters, then I think that's ok. Even if they actually don't mention it other than to say "bad guys don't necesserilly like all the other bad guys". I'd disagree with them in that stuff about evil fighting evil is something players CAN'T use, finding evil factions to play off against each other may be one of the best ways to slow down the comming of the end of the world while you fix it or whatever. But in general, filling books mainly with content (both fluff and crunch) that they believe will be used is a good thing.

If they're doing what EvilElitist believes, in that they're assuming that evil doesn't actually fight other evil in order to foucs on the PCs more (both the evil and the game focusing on the PCs more), then I think that is bad. Evil should fight against other evil, because it doesn't care who it fights against. If they took the steps to remove Cyrics history where he attacked Bane, Bhaal and Mask in order to obtain god-hood in FR, and changed Ebberon so all the evil factions got along well, just because they didn't want to focus on those actions, then that would be really stupid.

You know, you have demonstrated an excellent point. The quote is not specific enough to determine which of those two interpretations are correct.

That is why I choose to believe that the designers are not all absolute flipping morons. Only such morons would be so stupid as to do the latter. It is highly unlikely that they would do the latter, as it serves no purpose, and would alienate a lot of people. Therefore, the only rational choice is to assume the former until proven wrong by the actual rules.

[Dervag]

Yeah.

I mean, these are the same people who wrote all those other books about evil guys fighting evil guys. They're not going to turn around and think "oh, evil is this huge monolith that does nothing but scheme against good with no infighting." If they thought that, they would never have done the stuff they already did.

[EvilElitest]

EE, you seem to be of the opinion that the default rules should be completely devoid of *any* fluff whatsoever, since any fluff put in would, in fact, pidgeonhole players into the setting in which the fluff describes. Am I wrong?

Sigh, not you mist understand. I do however want the fluff to be versatile enough that it can be applied to multiple styles of worlds/play-styles without tweaking.


That's not an unreasonable opinion to take. However, you have to recognize something. 3e Greyhawk had many, many more specific assumptions and fluff than what we've seen in 4e so far. 3e Greyhawk *practically forces you* into its setting, much like what you seem to be complaining about in 4e FR.
Um, no because if you recall, somebody who didn't know about Greyhawk wouldn't notice such specific things. I haven't seen any 3.5 greyhawk books nor any part of the books that required you to be knowledgeable of greyhawk


PCs *must* have magic gear. Wizards rule the Universe. Life, Death and Rebirth is all dictated by the complicated Planar-soul system. The nature of Outsiders, the realms in the Underdark, the Blood War. All of these are awfully specific examples of setting elements that have a dramatic impact on how the game plays.
1. The wizards and magic gear thing is because of the rules, not the fluff

2. And i didn't like that part of 3.5, which i've never said was a perfect system and i support a new edition change. Just not the way this one seems to be handled
3. The planar system simply explains the rules for the multiverse, along with the underdark and blood war. These just added detail and vermilitude, they didn't force a particular play style. 3.5 wasn't setting style specific


EE, PoL is a specific setting*. It just happens to be he one that comes with the core books. It is no more required than Greyhawk was in 3e.

Yes it is, because the fluff and rules center around this concept of the PoL. The system is designed for PoL. In 3.5 it was much more free form, because i could simply do PoL and nation based games with ether one.


I'm fairly sure that non-setting specific books will be, by definition, non-setting specific. That means they will be usable in settings other than PoL, by the way.

The system is designed to be played in a PoL manner. Ergo, specific.


Wait, you're back to the 'The world revolves around the players' straw man? That was shot down a long time ago. Did you think it would work this time? That's insane**.

Um, when i have ever left the world revolves around the players. If by shot down you mean claimed it was "better for the system" then yeah, but it certainly wasn't shot down




PCs do not 'own' everything at first level. A great wyrm will still wipe the floor with them without even blinking. Exaggeration will not work with me, so please stop trying it, for sanity's** sake.
Well considering that wasn't me claim, then exaggeration isn't even needed. And you claimed a strawman then put up this? Classy However hte PCs do have, form all indications a massive amount of speical powers that makes them unique form everybody else, as they follow different rules from monsters/NPCs. That along with other things goes with the world revolves around the PCs thing i've brought up



What 'support' does evil vs. evil need? Specifically, what was in 3e core that isn't going to be in 4e core that you need to have one orc bash another over the head with heavy blunt object? Or what in 4e will prevent it?

It isn't going to be a focus, and this hinders consistency/vermlitude. For example, no books with mention how opposing evil groups who would reasons to fight each other doing so. In 3.5, for all its flaws, gave the impression taht the evil groups had more enemies then the PC and had to deal with other people
As i said, it isn't the decision but their reason for it

*
Like the 3e core rendition of Greyhawk, PoL is only a proto-setting. The basics are there, but it is not fully defined, so DMs can fill in the gaps as they see fit. Such as with warring tribes of orcs. Or peaceful farmer orcs. Regardless, the above point remains the same.

Except that as Greyhawk was totally unsported by main stream 3.5, many play style would work in said proto setting. however in 4E only one style is being supported



Ok, I still failed at brevity. Still, if you feel I missed some crucial point, bring it up specifically and I will respond to it specifically.

The main fact taht the largest complaint with 4E is that it is simplifying D&D by making it totally PC centric and killing world consistency and vermlitude.



EE
I still don't understand why you are under the impression that evil will not be fighting evil in 4E. What they've said is that they will not focus on it.
That just means that there wont be much material on evil fighting evil not that it's not happening just as much as it was in 3.X.

Also take a look at this fey Article:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...authentic=true

It surely looks like those EVIL fomorians are fighting other EVIL fomorians and that's from WOTCs own webpage for crying out loud.
1. Thank you. thank you so much for providing evidence of this not being true. Which is certainly comforting and i hope WotC keeps it up
2. My original point however of evil fighting evil being a good thing to have material to focus on still stands however that not focusing on it harbor PC centric attitudes

That being said, thanks for hte article



By your logic, either Eberron cannot be a counter to Titanium Dragon's claim that points of light is already the base assumption in 3.x because it is only setting specific, or it's a perfectly valid example about how points of light and "evil vs. evil is no longer true/no longer supported (much)/whatever you'll change your claim to next" is not the base assumption for D&D 4th ed. Make a decision.
1. Um not, Titanium dragon claimed that points of light is already the assumption of 3.5, to which i said no and provided examples of such. In 3.5 core there isn't much of a pro/con PoL assumpition and Ebberon is an example of a champion that covers both styles

Basically if you make a game that is designed for PoL specifically it is like publishing only Ebberon books that suported play in Xendrik (or what ever that giant continent is called) and none of the other aspect of the setting


For instance, where the heck are you pulling this from?
Those are all examples of evil fighting evil, instances that 3.5 went into detail. If evil fighting evil is not the focus, then all of these thing will be less supported. Which considering they are all things that make perfect sense in game and i feel add to the world, then yeah.



Especially since both Worlds and Monsters and Races and Classes are essentially collections of static, non-updating developer blogs. For all we know, "Less Evil Fighting Evil" could mean anything from less splatbooks such as Fiend Folio to make way for the multiple core books being published to an actual change in the mechanics. A change that frankly, would not be that drastic, as I've never heard of a Blackguard, demon, or devil with "smite evil" as one of its special attacks. Plenty of "smite good," though.
1. What is wrong with Fiend Folio? It is a cool book full of nice nasty monsters with interesting creatures that you can have fun with. It seems like your saying that vermlitude matters less then cool mechanical powers.
2. I don't know why Blackguard doesn't get smite evil, it makes sense to me. But i don't think that is the focus of this discussion

Gutter runner, the thing is I think evil fighting evil is extremly useful to only to a logical and consistent game world, but it can also be useful to the PCs (taking advantage of evil fighting evil tends to be rather common, anyone play Baldur's Gate)

However very good point, i think that was most likely the most convencing argument on this thread. We shall see
from
EE

[an kobold]

1. Um not, Titanium dragon claimed that points of light is already the assumption of 3.5, to which i said no and provided examples of such. In 3.5 core there isn't much of a pro/con PoL assumpition and Ebberon is an example of a champion that covers both styles

Those are all examples of evil fighting evil, instances that 3.5 went into detail. If evil fighting evil is not the focus, then all of these thing will be less supported. Which considering they are all things that make perfect sense in game and i feel add to the world, then yeah.

1. What is wrong with Fiend Folio? It is a cool book full of nice nasty monsters with interesting creatures that you can have fun with. It seems like your saying that vermlitude matters less then cool mechanical powers.


And you are saying that 4th Ed is only supporting points of light and evil doesn't fight evil, and I'm saying no, providing Eberron as an example of the opposite. To which you seemed to reply that it was irrelevant as it was a specific setting.

Just wondering, where did 3.5 go into detail with this? I know the 3rd party Slayer Guides went over it some, but I'm not exactly sure where it is in WotC's publishing.

Nothing is wrong with the Fiend Folio, it was the first splat book that popped into my mind. As for the whole releasing of more core books, I am not referring to my personal preference, but the already established marketing plan of WotC. They are publishing less "splat" and more "core," releasing the "core" in waves. Hence less room for splat books such as Fiend Folio. It had nothing to do with the verisimilitude of the world, a world, I might add, where good and evil are objective, magic exists, and half breeds of all sorts are physically able to reproduce, but of WotC established marketing strategy.

Also, have you actually considered what constitutes "evil vs. evil?" Because it's been established that most monsters and characters will be "unaligned" with no tendencies towards good or evil, and as a result a bunch of said spells and abilities have bit the dust. I'm going to guess most humanoid races are going to fall in the "unaligned" category, and maybe the occasional BBEG as well. Because there are fewer truly evil monsters, there will be fewer conflicts between said monsters.

And if other members of this board won't convince that 4th Ed. is only going to support one style of play, a la points of light, maybe the designers of 4th Ed. will.



We're not actually building a world out of the "core" setting. In a sense, the core setting is simply a collection of proper names, artifacts, and legends we expect many generic D&D games to share. This has always been true to some degree; even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye, that the drow fought the other elves and were driven underground, that Acererak the lich created a Tomb of Horrors somewhere on the planet, or that the Rod of Seven Parts was lying around someplace waiting to be found.

The big new thing in the "fluff" of 4e D&D is that we're not tethering these names and stories to the world of Greyhawk; we've created a new skeleton of linked assumptions (proper names, artifacts, stories) to anchor the fluff of the "implied" setting. Since we're telling a story that tieflings are the descendants of a ruling elite from a human empire that made pacts with devils, we might as well attach a "placeholder" name to it. Some DMs will use the name Bael Turath; other DMs will make up their own infernal empire. But "Bael Turath" looks nice than "[insert your chosen name here]".

Now, for my own part, I favor the idea of sketching a simple map of that setting and thinking up a name for it. But many of my colleagues feel that doing so would simply replicate the Greyhawk phenomenon, and make it harder for DMs who build their own worlds to use the material we're creating. (So far, I've lost that argument; hey, it happens!) The idea is to create just enough flavor to have interesting proper names and links for DMs to pick up and use, without dictating how their worlds have to go together.

[fendrin]

The PC centric attitude and lack of consistency in exchange for PC empowerment (and i mean Empowerment in the owning everything at first level sense) yes.

PCs do not 'own' everything at first level. A great wyrm will still wipe the floor with them without even blinking. Exaggeration will not work with me, so please stop trying it, for sanity's** sake.

Well considering that wasn't me claim, then exaggeration isn't even needed. And you claimed a strawman then put up this? Classy However hte PCs do have, form all indications a massive amount of speical powers that makes them unique form everybody else, as they follow different rules from monsters/NPCs. That along with other things goes with the world revolves around the PCs thing i've brought up
bold added for emphasis

EE, you have lost what little credibility you had with me. I'm generally a very patient person, but enough is enough. I have more better things to do than to waste my time posting in response to your inanity.

I cannot correct your reading comprehension issues. I cannot force you to understand (or apply) basic reasoning skills.

You have the distinct dishonor to be the first person I put on my Ignore list. you will probably be the only person there for a very, very long time. I can put up with a lot of garbage, but no more from you.

[Nebo_]

Yes it is, because the fluff and rules center around this concept of the PoL. The system is designed for PoL. In 3.5 it was much more free form, because i could simply do PoL and nation based games with ether one.

This. I'm going to assume that when you say system you're referring to the mechanics and not the fluff. Can you please give specific examples from the rules (not fluff) provided so far that make it impossible to run a game that isn't using the PoL setting? Your argument seems to be based on the system not working with other campaign settings, I'm intersted to see how you think the rules don't allow for anything but PoL.




You have the distinct dishonor to be the first person I put on my Ignore list. you will probably be the only person there for a very, very long time. I can put up with a lot of garbage, but no more from you.

*facepalm* Why didn't I think of that before?

[EvilElitest]

Alright, sadly yet again, i'm very sick, and i can't talk for long, so i'm just going to lie down and rest after this, might take a while to respond.



bold added for emphasis

Whoops, misunderstanding, let me explain


I was exaggerating in saying that level ones can own everything. In reality, it just seems like level ones are acting like 3.5 level fives, super special awesome instead of wet behind the ears guys getting to work together. Yes a great wrym would kill them, however they are already powerful significant people in the world who stand out at level one (from what we have seen)

now in 3E, at level one, your aren't a sucker, but your still a noobie, you might be a local celebrity (if you do stuff) but certainly not a hero in the Hercules sense of the word. You are still learning your stuff and slowly become a super powerful hero of awesomeness and become unique. When your level 1 the world still has plenty of bigger more powerful dudes running round

now in 4E, it seems like you are special from the get go in the heroic sense

Sorry for the misunderstand, i didn't understand what you were referring too. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding

Now, can somebody show him this for me?


And you are saying that 4th Ed is only supporting points of light and evil doesn't fight evil, and I'm saying no, providing Eberron as an example of the opposite. To which you seemed to reply that it was irrelevant as it was a specific setting.

I'll explian

In the preview books, the standard assumption for the 4E world is points of light. Ergo, that is what every non setting specific thing is going to work off, all creatures will be written to work into the points of light setting instead of a totally generic setting.

Ebberron is a specific setting, so it is except from this points of light rule, however i dislike that in order to play non points of light i
A) need to change all of the stuff to suit my purposes :smallannoyed:
B) play ebberon
Now ebberon is fine on its own, as is points of light, but i dislike being pigeoned holed into that assumption

sadly FR has been changed to points of light i think, which is very depressing:smallannoyed:


Just wondering, where did 3.5 go into detail with this? I know the 3rd party Slayer Guides went over it some, but I'm not exactly sure where it is in WotC's publishing.
what?


Nothing is wrong with the Fiend Folio, it was the first splat book that popped into my mind. As for the whole releasing of more core books, I am not referring to my personal preference, but the already established marketing plan of WotC. They are publishing less "splat" and more "core," releasing the "core" in waves. Hence less room for splat books such as Fiend Folio. It had nothing to do with the verisimilitude of the world, a world, I might add, where good and evil are objective, magic exists, and half breeds of all sorts are physically able to reproduce, but of WotC established marketing strategy.

Here is the thing, i rather liked the whole splat concept, it supported a lot of stuff.

When i play a specific setting, i do like to have the core stuff to be centralized, such as FR or Ebberon, or Ravenloft, or even Exalted if played that. However i can accept a core centric game, if it makes sense as a world.

However 4E seems to be leaning to the whole PC centric video game aspect, which is quite frankly very upsetting in terms of verisimilitude.

You can have a world with magic, cross breeds and objective good and evil aligments, as long as it is consistent.


Also, have you actually considered what constitutes "evil vs. evil?" Because it's been established that most monsters and characters will be "unaligned" with no tendencies towards good or evil, and as a result a bunch of said spells and abilities have bit the dust. I'm going to guess most humanoid races are going to fall in the "unaligned" category, and maybe the occasional BBEG as well. Because there are fewer truly evil monsters, there will be fewer conflicts between said monsters.
Never considered that actually. Thing is however, we don't know how unaligned is going to work out actually (personally i'm thinking it will only apply to creatures like oozes or what not)


And if other members of this board won't convince that 4th Ed. is only going to support one style of play, a la points of light, maybe the designers of 4th Ed. will.
that is somewhat comforting i suppose, but we shall see. Where did that come from by the way?

Now i need to go, due ti migraine. Have fun

from
EE

[Rutee]

*facepalm* Why didn't I think of that before?

Innate belief in the goodness of humanity? That's part of what keeps me from immediately applying Ignore to people who deserve it.

[an kobold]

that is somewhat comforting i suppose, but we shall see. Where did that come from by the way?



Most of the stuff I'm using comes from Enworld's page on 4th ed (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e), which has done a great job on compiling info from all sorts of sources and documenting them.

But I get what you're saying about Eberron, etc., now. And like I said, I'm not supporting WotC marketing department, that's just which way they've taken it.

Anyway, get better soon. Down in pollen country, headaches are in wide supply :smallannoyed: , so you have my empathies(?).

[EvilElitest]

Most of the stuff I'm using comes from Enworld's page on 4th ed (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e), which has done a great job on compiling info from all sorts of sources and documenting them.

I'll check it out


But I get what you're saying about Eberron, etc., now. And like I said, I'm not supporting WotC marketing department, that's just which way they've taken it.

Oh yeah, i understand WotC marketing plans, they are smart. I just bothers me



Anyway, get better soon. Down in pollen country, headaches are in wide supply :smallannoyed: , so you have my empathies(?).
Were in the south are you from? I'm North Carolinia

Anyways, the migraine comes from the really really really nasty cough that i've had for two weeks. So now i get to cough up blood, and have a head ache. Real fun that

Oh can you show my reply for Fendrin
from
EE

[Nebo_]

This. I'm going to assume that when you say system you're referring to the mechanics and not the fluff. Can you please give specific examples from the rules (not fluff) provided so far that make it impossible to run a game that isn't using the PoL setting? Your argument seems to be based on the system not working with other campaign settings, I'm intersted to see how you think the rules don't allow for anything but PoL.


I'm going to be nice, and assume that you just didn't see this, rather than actively ignoring it. I'd very much like an answer.

[an kobold]

Alright, sadly yet again, i'm very sick, and i can't talk for long, so i'm just going to lie down and rest after this, might take a while to respond.



Whoops, misunderstanding, let me explain


I was exaggerating in saying that level ones can own everything. In reality, it just seems like level ones are acting like 3.5 level fives, super special awesome instead of wet behind the ears guys getting to work together. Yes a great wrym would kill them, however they are already powerful significant people in the world who stand out at level one (from what we have seen)

now in 3E, at level one, your aren't a sucker, but your still a noobie, you might be a local celebrity (if you do stuff) but certainly not a hero in the Hercules sense of the word. You are still learning your stuff and slowly become a super powerful hero of awesomeness and become unique. When your level 1 the world still has plenty of bigger more powerful dudes running round

now in 4E, it seems like you are special from the get go in the heroic sense

Sorry for the misunderstand, i didn't understand what you were referring too. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding



Yo, fendrin, this is for you.

Anyways, as for your question, I'm in Georgia.

[EvilElitest]

I'm going to be nice, and assume that you just didn't see this, rather than actively ignoring it. I'd very much like an answer.

I did miss that actually
sadly i'm very tiried, so i'll reply tomorrow.


And Kobold, thanks. And i i rather liked Georgia actually, good university there:smallbiggrin:
from
EE