Quote from: HaffrungMeh. It's just a fancy way of saying Dwarves and Elves have prescribed deities, while humans gods and religion are more varied.

Yes, but it throws up a really weird paradox: the elves and dwarves know precisely where they came from. They can go up to the gods and ask if they really want to. And yet, apparently, not only does mankind not know its own origin story, the gods aren't telling.

On the face of it, the implications are interesting: it would suggest one of two things:

- Humanity is the eldest race, older than the elves, older than the dwarves, older than the gods. That's why the elves, dwarves and gods don't know where mankind came from.

- Humanity's creation was the product of a great and terrible secret: the elves and dwarves were never allowed to find out, and the gods swore themselves to secrecy.

This is cool, but on the other hand most D&D campaign settings don't have that particular mystery inherently hardwired into them. Hardwiring it into the implied setting makes the implied setting start to take on the aspects of... well... an actual, non-implied setting (much in the same way having a canonical list of gods does).

I'd prefer them to be more vague about things like gods and planes and what not.  It makes the game world seem less interesting, rather than more, when they let you know all the secrets.

Reading Sean's post, I don't really understand the concerns but I guess some people care about that stuff.

They could write that baby humans come from flowers and feed on roasted elven poop for all I care. The core books are usually generic enough that:

1-You can go crash down doors, kill shit and take its stuff and just have a general idea of what these races and classes are.  

2-You can use another setting (commercial or homemade) that will most certainly further flesh out, twist those assumptions or even scratch some and make new ones.

In this case, I came to a conclusion similar to Haffrung. The meta-implication is that humans are the generic race while others follow stronger archetypes. Ain't that much different from any other edition of D&D. It's just the latest lame-ass way of doing it, out of a 30 year-old tradition of lame-assness.

And likewise, I never cared for planes or the alignment of some monster or whether some species are demons or devils or how old the core books say an elf lives. Most of that information I ignore or modify all the time. It's still good that this information is there, especially for newbies, as some sort of reference. But I don't personally care about it.

I don't want to make it sound like all this stuff should be irrelevant to everyone as well. There are lots of people who seem to care about that stuff that I respect (like Caesar Slaad on this board) but I suspect there are many gamers who, just like me, don't care much. So WotC is just recodifying what are essentially the core generic assumptions of the game. I suspect all the fundamentals will be there (dwarves won't be evil cannibals, and baby humans probably won't eat elven poop and things with horns will be demons, devils or whatever fancy name they throw this week and there will be different planes) but the specifics will be recodified and as usual, many gamers will homebrew this stuff or ignore it the minute the books are out.

What really matters to me are the rules. The stuff that is used in play and is more difficult to homebrew. Ignoring the Greyhawk pantheon or deciding elves should have a natural lifespan of exactly 7777777 days is trivial for me. Changing the way armor class or spellcasting works is less so.

I'm pretty sick of hearing about the cosmology/gods/irrelevant setting.

I want crunch.  I want mechanics.

On the upside, I think it's safe to say that nothing the devs say or do about the implied setting will kill 4e for me.  On the downside, I really don't give a damn about it.

-O

Quote from: obrynI'm pretty sick of hearing about the cosmology/gods/irrelevant setting.

I want crunch.  I want mechanics.

On the upside, I think it's safe to say that nothing the devs say or do about the implied setting will kill 4e for me.  On the downside, I really don't give a damn about it.

Given that the development and design articles so far have been scrupulously, meticulously mechanic-less, I suspect the designers are under strict instructions not to discuss the mechanics at this point. Which is possibly sensible, considering that there's still playtesting happening and there may be a few final system changes in the light of that, but it does mean that they're having to make vague statements about what's changed without a) showing us how they've changed and b) showing us what's staying the same.

If they drastically change the meta-setting and game mechanics for core D&D, how is it D&D? Think about this for a minute. They're not only making Vancian magic virtually irrelevant, or ditching the nine-level spell system. And they're not just making it so you stop rolling saving throws. And they're not just making part-demons and part-angels as "core" races. They're changing the entire cosmology for "core" D&D.

I mean, honestly, changing all that stuff above is already a HUGE change, in ways I can't even think of yet, but the planar cosmology stuff is MAJOR. Some of you here might think it doesn't much matter, because you can say:

"Hey, we didn't go to the planes that much ANYWAY".

But it matters, and I'll tell you why. In 4e, you might be able to reach the tribe of the fire elementals on foot, instead of using plane shift or some kind of jacked-up teleport spell. In pre-4e games, you'd need more magic to protect yourself against the environment of the Elemental Plane of Fire itself. I'm hearing things that imply that this is not the case in 4e. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but I have my concerns.....

In the past, you'd encounter an elemental because some wizard summoned it to the Prime Material Plane (the campaign setting) for some particular reason.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the planar cosmology determined what monsters you'd encounter, and where. On ENWorld, they're going on and on about tieflings, and gnomes, and shit, and I'm like, "whatthefuckever, that's annoying, but it's gravy". That's only one small component of the game. They're gonna change the entire meta-setting in addition to the rules that allow us to normally identify the game as D&D. Why do that? Hasbro/WoTC has three rpgs already. Why not create another rpg that does what they actually want? Why trample 30 years of D&D legacy?

In the new edition, there's the saturation of demonic influences that wasn't so obvious before. We have the tiefling and warlock as core now. There will be more demonic opponents. WoTC seems to be assuming a much higher degree of demonic (or devilish) influence in core D&D before. Even 1e didn't feel this saturated by....um....."fiends"? Maybe they should call the new game "Dungeons & Demons". :rolleyes:

But you know what? It's not just that either. It's all the tiny little things, like the fighter magically regenerating/healing himself, the de-emphasis of "save-or-die" spells, which has many far-reaching implications for the game, and more.

If Hasbro wants to create a new game, they should just design an entirely new roleplaying game.  I'm not opposed to some new rules, but when you drastically change BOTH meta-setting AND game mechanics for the game, what do you have left? Damned if I know...:raise:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambGrognardy Rant

You know, I appreciate that you feel so strongly about a lot of this stuff, but I completely disagree.

I'm not going to go into the specific whys and wherefores - there are about 80 other threads for that here - but the whole "trampling D&D's memory" thing is just too much.

It's the same refrain that we heard when 3e was coming out.  It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.  Your criteria for what makes a game D&D are not the same as other peoples'.  (Check the fairly recent poll for why.)  They are trashing nothing except in your head.

They are not calling the game by a new name because (1) it's a direct, evolutionary descendant of 3e D&D, and (2) they own the trademark, and it's a very valuable one.

-O

Yawn.  You're ignoring what he's actualyl saying in favor of reading into it shit he didn't say.

He has an actual, really, logical point here, and if you weren't so ready to dismiss it, you might've seen it.  

3e kept the established meta-setting largely intact, so much so that you can (and many companies have) fairly easy port over old modules, usually by simply taking the name of thing X and just upgrading it to the latest version, whether it's a class or a monster or a spell or whatever the hell.  The specific mechanics have changed, there's some new options there now, but by and large stuff stays pretty constant from 3e all the way back, regardless of the what grognards at DF would like to believe.

There is however, a definite trend in the descriptions from the developers, towards muddling with the meta-setting and standard gameplay structures in such a way that this may not be possible.  For fuck's sake, they actually made a statement suggesting that players should restart their campaigns for 4e because it will be easier than trying to convert.

I'm sick and fucking tired of people dismissing any criticism as delusion and speculation, when there's actual fucking evidence for this shit straight from the mouths of Wizards employees and developers.  If anyone's making assinine assumptions, it's the people who are apparently so determined to insult 4e's critics that they fail to realize that their method for doing so amounts to calling Wizards all a bunch of liars.  Nobody's making shit up here, you just don't want to see it, and that's your goddamn problem, not mine, not SL's, not anyone's.

Quote from: J ArcaneGrognardy Defensive Rant

I could give a crap less whether or not he likes 4e, hates 4e, or would rather play GURPS.

In other words, you're ignoring what I actually said in preference of what I didn't say.

I'm saying that this "YOU'RE TRAMPLING ON TEH LEGACY OF D&D!!!1" meme is whiny crap.

-O

Quote from: J ArcaneThe specific mechanics have changed, there's some new options there now, but by and large stuff stays pretty constant from 3e all the way back, regardless of the what grognards at DF would like to believe.

Absolute bullshit. 3E is a substantially different game from earlier editions - in mechanics, in presumed play style, and in tone.

Try running a 3E adventure and ignoring skills, feats, all the tactical combat maneuvers, and the presumed easy access to magic items. Then try to convert the inflated HPs, damage, spells, and overall higher power levels of 3E. Then try to address the whole approach of 3.x D&D as a series of detailed tactical encounters strung together by a cliched plot. Try ignoring all the halfling sorcerors, dwarven clerics, and elf-dragon Mystic/Assassins. Then try to ignore the artwork and overall tone of anime-CRPG-superhero inspired awesome. It's not easy at all. For most old-school D&D players, the Shattered City Adventure Path may as well be a Glorantha campaign book.

Why in fuck do you think edition wars have raged around the internet for the last seven years? Why do you think there's a forum with thousands of members where even mentioning 3E is verbotten? The only people who think 4E is going to be a bigger departure from the game's origins that 3E was are people who like 3E and don't want to change. Their discomfort does not make the transition more substantial, or WotC bigger assholes, than the transition to 3E was.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere is however, a definite trend in the descriptions from the developers, towards muddling with the meta-setting and standard gameplay structures in such a way that this may not be possible.  

You mean like opening up every class to every race, and destroying the archetypes that had been around for 25 years? You mean turning thieves into acrobatic, tumbling ninjas? You mean turning gnomes into tinkering scientists? You mean allowing monsters as PCs? You mean turning magic item creation into child's play? You mean radically altering the levelling scale so as to completely change the pace of the game? You mean making battle-mats and miniatures virtually mandatory? You mean cleansing the game of fatal poison, level drain, deadly traps, and other 'unfair' game challenges. You mean taking much of the authority of game away from the DM by codifying and enshrining every possible action in the rules?

If bringing old school to 3e is so impossible, how come there's reams upon reams of text and modules published that do exactly that?  Hmm?  

I can take a module from the 1e era, and if it says Kobold, I go, OK, and use the stats for a Kobold.  they even fill similar positions in the line up of available monsters, in terms of relative strenght and capability.  I can't do the same thing when suddenly there are no "kobolds", but rather "brutes" and "masterminds" and whatever the fuck, and kobold is just a lable tacked onto a generic "monster type" mechanic.

You guys must play in radically different games than I ever did if the 'CHANGE OF THE COSMOLOGY" is an earthshattering event.

Seriously.

99% of all my gaming occured in what you lovingly call 'the prime Material Plane', and what my characters always just called 'here'.  If we encountered an elemental we didn't always, or even mostly, know if it was summoned or why, we just knew it had to die now, so we could take it's stuff.

I'm not even sure the homebrew setting I'm playing in now even connects to all that shit, and I KNOW Eberron doesn't use the core cosmology... though those damn charts they lay out are utter ass regardless.  Ooh look, a lot of bubbles and lines... pretty.... what's it all mean???

Maybe I haven't played enough high level shit. Maybe I should be more concerned with HOW the ethereal shifting abilities of certain monsters work, instead of just concerning myself with the mechanic of '50% of all 'hits' actually miss...'.

But y'know? I just don't give a damn. I'm not even sure that cosmology was in place when I started playing. The Abyss was some deep hell-pit where demons came from, and that was about it. Oh, and paladins could fight demons in hell and look badass about it.

But the exact relation of various planes to one another? NOT a 'core concept' of any D&D I've ever played.

Quote from: SpikeYou guys must play in radically different games than I ever did if the 'CHANGE OF THE COSMOLOGY" is an earthshattering event...

But y'know? I just don't give a damn. I'm not even sure that cosmology was in place when I started playing. The Abyss was some deep hell-pit where demons came from, and that was about it. Oh, and paladins could fight demons in hell and look badass about it.

But the exact relation of various planes to one another? NOT a 'core concept' of any D&D I've ever played.

What he said.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambAnd they're not just making part-demons and part-angels as "core" races.
Maybe they should call the new game "Dungeons & Demons".

Or "Angels & Demons"?

100 points for anyone who catches the rather obscure reference.