I have never been one to prefer any version of Greyhawk to the absolutist exclusion of other versions. I have always looked forward, even if grumbling or cussing or attempting to escape something I did not care for in the past. Today, I can no longer do this. I never, and I mean never EVER, want to see Greyhawk published again, at least not until 5th Edition. I don't think I'm overreacting.
"Astral Sea?" "Elemental Tempest?" Tharizdun (and who knows what other GHisms) transformed into truly generic, "anyworld" or "every world" figures? The Great Wheel broken? Elementals as the origin of demons? Angels as the origin of devils?
The basic assumptions of GH and D&D are being undermined. Demons as mindless "engines of destruction? So much for Grazzt, Iuz, Iggwilv, Zuggtomy, the Maures, Lolth, the drow as worshippers of Lolth etc. And there goes the Greyhawk Wars and FtA, as demons are just mindless brutes who "have no real organization and no singular aim." And there goes the Giant Series for the same reasons, Lolth (a demon at the time) is just a big, mindless spider, not a planner and manipulator.
This cannot be retconned or handwaved away. GH has a HISTORY that makes assumptions contrary to these new paradigms. AND WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FINAL PRODUCT.
Greyhawk is DEAD and needs tpo stay DEAD.
I am officially a grognard. Me Grognard. This Greyhawk. _________________ GVD
DVD:
Maybe I haven't been around the internet long enough. Other than WOTC I honestly do not know what grognard means. If it is something you can say here please tell me, otherwise pm me. I realize your upset and understandably so, I didn't like the demon post either. So if you can pass this on I'd appreciate it.
I am officially a grognard. Me Grognard. This Greyhawk. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
DVD:
Maybe I haven't been around the internet long enough. Other than WOTC I honestly do not know what grognard, EFF U means. If it is something you can say here please tell me, otherwise pm me. I realize your upset and understandably so, I didn't like the demon post either. So if you can pass this on I'd appreciate it.
DVD:
Maybe I haven't been around the internet long enough. Other than WOTC I honestly do not know what grognard, EFF U means. If it is something you can say here please tell me, otherwise pm me. I realize your upset and understandably so, I didn't like the demon post either. So if you can pass this on I'd appreciate it.
Actually, it has more the connotation of "old guard" as this was one of the names given to Napoleon's troops -- it came to mean an "old-line" wargamer, particularly one who had been involved in wargaming for a long time, and from there (due to the wargaming roots) to RPGs.
Yup, it does mean an old veteran denotatively, but it has the connotation of a 'grumpy old man who doesn't like the new fangled things'. Because, as you know, old soldiers never think the noobs are up to the task.
And I really don't like the "let's change everything because we can" motif of WotC's creative developers. Its rather throwing out the baby with the bathwater, imho.
Just as a quibble, no one but serious GH folks thinks Lolth is a demoness. Her FR version as a full fledged goddess with her own realm and mini pantheon of subordinates is the official one. She just happens to live in the Abyss (and not even that, now, IIRC). So the drow are fine... or no better or worse than they were before.
I logged off earlier in the day, after reading GVD's excellent, well thought out and sober plans for a CY576 sourcebook. 4 hours later, I log on and GVD's gone psycho. He's smashing down the doors of Wotc's ivory tower with an axe, leering through the portals' remains yelling "here's Johnny".
I hope anything sharp is safely locked away at casa GVD.
I'll admit to chuckling out loud at the rant/post, because it's this kind of passion, enthusiasm and sheer love of the setting that's going to get us all through the dispassionate, uncaring and, frankly, manipulative twaddle emanating from the aforementioned profit-mongers.
From the ashes, indeed.
Eileen, I didn't fully understand the term grognard either. I sure as hell do now, though.
Yea, I picked up on it now as well. Thanks for the defination.
GVD, if your done smashing down doors can we get back to business?
Books don't write themselves you know.
The other question I have is this.....
You guys can if you so choose do anything you want with Greyhawk save but make money on it. If you really want to rewrite a Gazetteer then let's make some solid decisions, form a task team and start writing.
At the very least the authors of the effort will have something they will most certainly want to use and be proud of.
My Top Secret/S.I. accomplishments in my opinion would turn this game inside out with glee for most fans if I could offer it to them. We can offer ourselves Greyhawk...Nobody says we have to rely on WOTC for this.
It's home brew....in this case Canonfire brew. A shared home Gazetteer could really be something great. What do you say....? _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I logged off earlier in the day, after reading GVD's excellent, well thought out and sober plans for a CY576 sourcebook. 4 hours later, I log on and GVD's gone psycho. He's smashing down the doors of Wotc's ivory tower with an axe, leering through the portals' remains yelling "here's Johnny".
I hope anything sharp is safely locked away at casa GVD.
I'll admit to chuckling out loud at the rant/post, because it's this kind of passion, enthusiasm and sheer love of the setting that's going to get us all through the dispassionate, uncaring and, frankly, manipulative twaddle emanating from the aforementioned profit-mongers.
From the ashes, indeed.
Eileen, I didn't fully understand the term grognard either. I sure as hell do now, though.
My apologies for ranting. I just got . . . exercised. I'm calmer now but convinced to a fare-the-well that I am not the customer Wotc is looking for with 4e. _________________ GVD
. . . You guys can if you so choose do anything you want with Greyhawk save but make money on it. If you really want to rewrite a Gazetteer then let's make some solid decisions, form a task team and start writing.
At the very least the authors of the effort will have something they will most certainly want to use and be proud of.
My Top Secret/S.I. accomplishments in my opinion would turn this game inside out with glee for most fans if I could offer it to them. We can offer ourselves Greyhawk...Nobody says we have to rely on WOTC for this.
It's home brew....in this case Canonfire brew. A shared home Gazetteer could really be something great. What do you say....?
Like you I have written a big sourcebook (300 or so pages on Keoland which I will eventually upload) for my own edification. It took a year and a half.
I have also seen the Gran March Project attempt a "shared-world" gazetteer of a single country. It is still underway and coordinating matters is sometimes hit or miss, depending on people's schedules etc.
I'm not saying "no" or that this isn't a good idea. I think your idea is a good one. Fan made GH is likely to be the only GH and miles truer to the setting than anything Wotc might do under 4e. However, I think one would want to be clear eyed about it at the same time. It wouldn't be done in a week or a month or by Christmas.
Once my blood pressure returns fully to normal, I'm up for discussing the possibilities. Either here or in a new thread in the main forum. _________________ GVD
I know what your saying about time frames....As a single writer for Top Secret/S.I. I can't tell you how many times I have rewritten the Players Guide because I upgraded from a lousy typewriter to a word processer, and a world processer to a computer...then I found out how to use different features of the computer so I started writing again.
I don't expect anything soon. What I am pushing for is decisive thoughts in one area on canonfire with someone who knows Greyhawk the best or various areas the best and step up as core organizer. This person would rely on volunteers who would offer to write areas they are comfortable with and provide shorter rough drafts turned into the core design team to see if everyone is on the same page. The core design team is in charge of saving the information written and checking for the product to be accurate and linked together properly.
I would have a design team of 4-5 people you are most comfortable with and who's ideas are compatible as well as having the knowledge required of Greyhawk. Each person is responsible for managing a group of writers who work on individual smaller sections. Me.....I like random encounter tables and I'm currently working on an article of Dragons for Oerth Journal.
Once we get things lined up, one will get an idea of how long it could take to provide a cohesive text. Organization is the key. Most of us are adults and clearly there is a commitment involved here. People who can dedicate more time will write bigger sections, those with less time can write smaller sections. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I know I am personally going to be emailing them on this. Specifically, while I have no issue with their alternate origins of the demons (and to a lesser degree, devils), I think their characterization of demons right now is wholly incorrect for pretty much ANY incarnation of DnD, with the possible exception of Ebberon. In fact for Ebberon I think its spot on. Demons as agents of chaos is not only wrong, its completely out of character. Demons are supposed to be chaotic incarnations of evil. Evil first, chaotic second. Granted, they deal more with ruling by force and action than by threats and treaties like the devils would, but they are capable of long term planning just like anything else. Now sticking to that planning is a different matter, and one in which the chaotic and awful aspects come to light. A demon's long term plan is going to be a framework at best. A devil's is going to be a detailed plan of action.
OK Folks,
Keep in mind that this forum has a language filter to prevent vulgarity. Abbreviations and phoenetics used to bypass that filter, intentionally or not, are unacceptable.
The basic assumptions of GH and D&D are being undermined. Demons as mindless "engines of destruction? So much for Grazzt, Iuz, Iggwilv, Zuggtomy, the Maures, Lolth, the drow as worshippers of Lolth etc. And there goes the Greyhawk Wars and FtA, as demons are just mindless brutes who "have no real organization and no singular aim." And there goes the Giant Series for the same reasons, Lolth (a demon at the time) is just a big, mindless spider, not a planner and manipulator.
I disagree with you friend. Why can' t everyone understand that chaotic evil is not just about being mindless. They are bent on destruction and this is what appeases them! They reap in the feeling of crushing someone with their bare hands, getting down and dirty with the blood of their enemies. When demons eat they eat with their hands and wear no bib, while devils are opposite, they use utensils and wear a bib! use one! Devils are into corrupting people to gain power thus souls to feed on or to create new devils. They like to control weaker beings to do as their bidding but plot against one another to achieve a higher rank. Chaotic evil is the strongest of the fittest, any means necessary, a means to a survival.
So Lolth can still be a Demoness because she satiates herself on the chaotic web spun by her servants. She can continue to grant rewards to her worshippers by turning them into driders! Like, does that make sense? No! But it does to her because spiders are her game, man. And you gotta be like her to understand her. I would keep Lolth as a spider demon that uses her feminine elven form as a change self spell, or whatever, because she really isn't humanoid anymore, she's an arachnoid now! And don't forget she is a goddess so if she chooses in becoming a devil lady, all the power to her. It makes sense the drow now follow a caste system on attaining rank fairly instead of killing everybody to get to the top, as was before.
And, maybe Grazzt really is a devil lord, incognito for the master plan of all plans, to betray the demon princes? He is the master of subterfuge, after all. Heck Grazzt IS Lolth and her Lolth persona is an avatar of demonism from her foothold of the Demonweb Pits which really is a staging ground for devils to infiltrate the demons Abyss! You know what, this sounds so good I am going to use this for my self!
I think you're missing the point. We don't want to "make it work". It already works. Why should we have to rewrite whatever they come up with when they shouldn't have mucked with it in the first place?
I've got to agree with bubba. I've swung firmly back into the "not bothering with 4e" camp having read the excerpts from the 3 books. I was willing to give it a chance but, as bubba states, too many unnecessary changes. Tieflings, no thanks. Dragonborn, leave me alone. Points of light, yawn.
I think you're missing the point. We don't want to "make it work". It already works. Why should we have to rewrite whatever they come up with when they shouldn't have mucked with it in the first place?
I get the point for those gamers who rely on printed 3.5E material to drive their campaign story line are miffed on having things changed so drastically – in the rules, that is - that they feel they have to convert to 4th E to carry on! And, I understand the angst formed from knowing the changes in rules to reconvert 4th E to 3.5E is an undertaking, which isn’t worth it to “make it work.” I myself got fed up of trying to adapt some of the 3.0E rules in my 2ndE campaign (confusion developed), that I had to decide to completely crossover to 3.0E or just stick with 2ndE. 3.0E sold it for me but I miss 2ndE because its style of game play worked for me.
I disagreed on that angst because I feel there isn’t much of a change with demons and devils. Nothing that I haven’t done myself in my own games and nothing I couldn’t fix to fit in with my own rules too. I gave possible scenarios in my post showing how easy it is to “make it work.” That is all. But, yeah, for wanting things to stay the same it is a pain in the arse to do any kind of revision, especially when the system works the way it is for you. Having to go back to older material and rethink stuff is tedious, that’s for sure!
Last edited by Gravenhurst on Thu May 08, 2008 6:23 am; edited 1 time in total
The change is rather more extreme than you seem to think. Demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet require massive rewriting, because their "shtick" is now only for devils. Frankly, most of the work that has gone into Planewalker.com and the Demonomicon of Iggwilv articles is so much toast now.
The extremely limited options for mages in 4e are a pretty substantial nuisance for Greyhawk fans since few of the iconic wizards there are blast'em up types. The lack of druids and bard is a nuisance, with those two classes being more important in Greyhawk than any other published campaign world.
No revision is necessary. Behavior is roleplaying oriented, not rules oriented. Keep your demons and devils behaving as you want them too. Use the rules for being on the planes if you play using the 4e rules, and just use the organization of the planes that you like, if you prefer the planar wheel or not. No revision is neccessary, just what rules you reference when those planes come into play. So, there are no problems at all even if you do play 4e but want to use the old organization of things.
And demons are not the types who prefer to eat with their hands and no bib any more than devils are. Graz'zt surely plays the sophisticate, as does Iuz even though he is known for his unpredictable rages. Devils are known for their savage barbarity too. Some demons and devils are more bestial in form, some are not. If you can't hold eating utensils then yes, you will eat with your hands and make a mess of things. Many lower planar critters fit that bill, and not just demons. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The change is rather more extreme than you seem to think. Demon lords like Graz'zt and Malcanthet require massive rewriting, because their "shtick" is now only for devils. Frankly, most of the work that has gone into Planewalker.com and the Demonomicon of Iggwilv articles is so much toast now.
The extremely limited options for mages in 4e are a pretty substantial nuisance for Greyhawk fans since few of the iconic wizards there are blast'em up types. The lack of druids and bard is a nuisance, with those two classes being more important in Greyhawk than any other published campaign world.
I side with Cebrion on this. As I have suggested to all the 4thE haters/debaters out there (I am too, as a buyer, maybe as a DM, but not as a player), if you decide on switching over to 4thE just keep your own history, story and past canon going, but play with the new rules, per se. So even though 3.5E demons become devils they don't have to cross over if you don't want them too. How about changing back the demons that have crossed over to devils by changing back their name title and alignment? Maybe stats will be the same as the devil but in role-playing no one will know the difference. See, little change, not a re-haul at all. I am sure more options will develop out of the 4thE to help with changing back the demon to its roots with little work. But we are arguing about a new set of rules without even playing them yet. "Moot is the root until the root is uncovered" is what I say.
But I do have to clarify my points on my demon references. I have been referring to the 3.5E demons staying as they are in theme with their roots with suggestions on story development. I have been in no way including the 4thE primordial-bred elemental demon as the base of my suggestions on carrying the mantle for the original demon. Sorry for the confusion. On that note, I side with Vormaerin on 4thE demons being “more extreme” requiring “massive rewriting” in wanting the originating idea of what a demon is/was, to quote him. I agree the new demon caste is one whopping change, but it doesn’t change my view on creating options with little tweaking for the original demon in 4thE. How about instead of changing the converted devon (a.k.a. devil-demon) or demoil (a.k.a. demon-devil, I like this one) back to its original status change the new elemental demons instead? The newer elemons (a.k.a. elemental-demons) or dementals (a.k.a. demon-elementals, I like this moniker) will have an elemental sub-type. Alas, it all involves having to actually create more change in 4thE than you wish you wouldn’t have too, eh! I for one am not keen on the new demon race being elemental and being called demons in the first place, but doing away with the original demons isn’t so bad an idea to me anyways.
I want to hold off on making a judgement on 4e w.r.t. Greyhawk, but from everything I have seen these rules would change the way Greyhawk runs. I am to the point now with three editions, not including other systems like Castles and Crusades and Pathfinder, why go to a system that strays from the fundamentals of Greyhawk.
I have been gaming since 1981, so perhaps I am not being fluid enough in my thinking to allow for a new system. Are there any new gamers, say who just started gaming within the last three years, who have a different opinion of what 4e offers that other systems do not?
And demons are not the types who prefer to eat with their hands and no bib any more than devils are. Graz'zt surely plays the sophisticate, as does Iuz even though he is known for his unpredictable rages. Devils are known for their savage barbarity too. Some demons and devils are more bestial in form, some are not. If you can't hold eating utensils then yes, you will eat with your hands and make a mess of things. Many lower planar critters fit that bill, and not just demons.
I have always categorized demons as being more bestial and devils more sophisticated as the latter are related to humans, while the former are related to confusion and randomness. It has helped me to differentiate them this way from devils, more so for the players to believe that there are differences. I can see how chaos can be shown as being normal like. An example would be of a lawful kid with a messy room trying to find something and always does but she'd still be lawful. And a chaotic kid with a clean and orderly room but her picture frames are all tilted and objects are placed backwards is still chaotic, as an example. And to the outside viewer both rooms would pose an opposite response in what one is viewing: the lawful kid would be construed as a messy and chaotic person, while the chaotic kid would be referred to as being neat and befuddled but lawful in the placements of her belongings. Does it make sense, no, can it work, yes.
So in regards to Grazz’t as a Demon Prince posing as a sophisticated creature that eats with utensils and doesn’t need to wear a bib is quite odd to me considering the grand scheme of things of the meaning of chaos. I understand that Grazz’t has been published as normal except for his 6 fingers, making it a hard time for people in seeing Grazz’t for what he truly is, a devil - A being of lawful tendencies. Not one of chaos!
So tear off that bib on demons and guide their claws baby, 'cuz chaos is gonna slurp that soup up, and wear the bowl on their head, oh yeah!
So in regards to Grazz’t as a Demon Prince posing as a sophisticated creature that eats with utensils and doesn’t need to wear a bib is quite odd to me considering the grand scheme of things of the meaning of chaos. I understand that Grazz’t has been published as normal except for his 6 fingers, making it a hard time for people in seeing Grazz’t for what he truly is, a devil - A being of lawful tendencies. Not one of chaos!
Grazz't's schtick has always been that he is too "human" to be a demon. It always made me think there was more to his story than the typical demon lord. The ramping up of demonic beastiality in 4e seems like it would further accentuate Grazz't's schtick. I see no problem with keeping him as is.
No offense, but "Duh". However, what does that have to do with anything? I don't even need to use the MM.. I hardly do at all as it is. But if I am interested in using 4e, then everything published related to demons is going to be substantially in conflict with past material.
Do you really think that when they publish the GH Campaign Sourcebook and GH Player's Guide that they are going to have the original demon/devil schema in place again? I don't. Do you think its going to cause confusion in general discussion in say a year or two when new threads about demons/devils/cosmology start up? I do.
Frankly, its getting almost pointless to even talk about 4e (especially on other sites) because any time you do, someone comes along and says "Just write your own rules/fluff/whatever" if you have a quibble with something. Why are we pretending to talk about 4e if the answer to every question is "house rule it"? I can run Greyhawk with Runequest or Ars Magica rules, too. But its kind of off topic....
I don't use the Great Wheel and I have a lot of custom work into my GH cosmology, gods, etc. It works for me and will continue to do so regardless of what rules, D&D or otherwise, I use. But its not really germaine to a typical canonfire conversation, particularly one in a system specific forum.
WotC is quite deliberately trashing the existing demon lore. If we ever see a 4e Malcanthet, the story side will be substantially different. Obviously, you don't have to go along with it or any other lore changes. But the new lore is going to frame conversations going forward.
I never, and I mean never EVER, want to see Greyhawk published again, at least not until 5th Edition.
I'm a Spelljammer fan, so need D&D to give me a great Greyhawk, a great Forgotten Realms and a great Dragonlance. It looks to me that Forgotten Realms is going to be unrecognisable and Greyhawk (and Dragonlance) is going to either be missing, chopped up or mucked about with to the point of being a different planet.
I've heard some great things about 4th edition "crunch", but everything I hear about the 4e "fluff" makes my skin crawl.
One of the things that I find most frustrating, is that we are told that we need a new D&D, but there is so much that is still missing from 3rd edition. There are hundreds of monsters that haven't been converted to 3rd edition yet. There is no GHCS yet. There is no Monsters of Greyhawk yet. There is no Races of Greyhawk yet. I could go on. And on. And on. And that is just the GH stuff.
4th edition is getting me to buy a bunch of new RPG books, but it isn't the new ones. I've decided to bite the bullet and buy a bunch of FRCS books that I was holding out on. I'm buying most of the MWP line of DLCS books. And I'm going to buy the best of the generic 3rd edition books.
I'll be looking for the fan community to supply me with the parts of 3rd edition that are missing from the equasion. I hope that Canonfire! can supply me with a PDF for each Living Greyhawk metaregion. I hope that the Greytalkers are not all going to switch to 4e rules and make new fluff to bridge the gap between the poor quality 4e fluff and Greyhawk. I hope that other people are going to stick with 3rd edition (or make edition neutral things that I can use).
Maybe when (and if) 5th edition comes out, WotC (or whoever buys D&D) will return to the roots and make something that wouldn't have Gary Gygax turning in his grave. If that happens, I'll look at it. I'll be very suspicious of anything that has the D&D brand name, but I'll give 5th edition a fair hearing. But at the moment I can't see anything that is going to make me want to play 4th edition D&D.
I didn't realise that I was a "grognard". But it seems that I am a grognard.
But I don't want to sit in a 4th edition forum ranting away and annoying any 4e fans who want to convert 4e D&D to Greyhawk. I think anyone who wants to do that has a right to do it. (And lets face it a fan conversion like that is going to be the only sort of thing that could possibly tempt me to play 4e.)
So I hope that any other grognards are going to go back to the 3rd edition forums (or the earlier edition forums) and do something positive (instead of moan about WotC). (If I wanted to see people moaning about WotC, I could just go over to their forum! )
(I'm going to try to do some stuff for 3rd edition D&D. I'm not sure what I can do at the moment, but I'll see what I am best at and do that.)
<holds out a red pill in one hand and a blue pill in the other hand>
This is your last chance, GVDammerung. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in third edition and you believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill and you stay in forth edition and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Remember, all I am offering you is the truth. Nothing more.
Just as a quibble, no one but serious GH folks thinks Lolth is a demoness. Her FR version as a full fledged goddess with her own realm and mini pantheon of subordinates is the official one. She just happens to live in the Abyss (and not even that, now, IIRC). So the drow are fine... or no better or worse than they were before.
Lolth, in 4th edition, lives in the Abyss and retains the title "demon queen of spiders," but is explicitly a goddess (the sister of Sehanine), not a demon as such.
Yeah, unless you started with Greyhawk there's never been any confusion about whether Lolth is a demoness or a Goddess. She was a demoness in 1e GH (and like all the major demon lords, effectively a lesser god). But once the FR came out and in every edition of the game since then (ie, 2, 3, & 4) she's been a goddess who happens to live in the Abyss.
Big Mac, a great place to start would be the Oerth Journal. Maybe you already use it, I don't know. Fear not, there will be a lot of 3.5 around!
Thanks for your best wishes. I've not read all the Oerth Journal's yet, but I've put them into my reading queue. As the "star product" of Canonfire!, I know they are going to be good.
Actually since the announcement of 4th edition, I've been buying a ton of 3rd edition products, so I'm going to spend the next year reading 3.0 and 3.5 D&D rules. _________________ David 'Big Mac' Shepheard<br />My Greyhawk links: http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9355<br />(If I am not here, you can find me at the Greyhawk or Chainmail forums at The Piazza.)<br />
The Oerth Journal is a separate entity from Canonfire!, but a lot of contributors to The Oerth Journal are members of the Canonfire! website. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Not at all. The Oerth Journal is a free fan e-zine, and as such it requires no license of any kind. The authors who contribute to The Oerth Journal are free to stick to GSL guidelines or not, write for whatever rules system they want to(though we do prefer conversion notes for 3.5e to be included, or permission given for us to develop and include them on our own). The GSL is for third parties that want to sell products that are compatible with D&D 4e, and so certain guidelines must be adhered to if they wish to do that. Basically, if you want to say that your product is compatable with 4e and make money off of it, then you need to have a GSL and follow its guidelines exactingly. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
I hope you're right. After reading over certain sections it looks like WOTC is wanting to clamp down on what is out there. Something doesn't feel right about this new license. _________________ Agape,
Maybe its just me, but I don't see the Demon = Elemental disconnect. Balor (Balrogs in OD&D) were certainly based on Tolkien's Balrogs which were corrupted Fire-themed Maia....elementals for lack of a better term. The Temple of Elemental Evil certainly had the Elemental & Demonic connection.
4E has made HUGE changes to a lot of things, and Greyhawk modified to fit all those changes would be a very difefernt setting. This would be a way bigger change than From the Ashes.
If you like the mechanical changes in 4E, it's probably not that hard to ignore most of the new fluff, and use older background material. Be prepared to do some houseruling and trimming, natch. GFit 4E top Greyhawk, rather than Greyhawk to 4E.
My approach exactly CombatMedic. Another thing -- I hate struggling with adapting mechanics but I've found 4e to be much easier to do this with than 3 and 3.5. Maybe that's just me though, and I haven't really had the chance to test out these adaptations for play yet, although I'm hoping to be able to kick off a 4e GH campaign by December or January if not sooner.
I remember reading somewhere that some demons can grant power indirectly. kinda like the power is actually granted by a evil god in the name of the demon to promote evil and the worshipper is none the wiser.
The lack of druids and bard is a nuisance, with those two classes being more important in Greyhawk than any other published campaign world.
I know this going back a ways but I severely disagree with this. Yes they played an important role in GH,but FR was more a showcase for these classes. WoTC will most likely come out with them in some sort of Moonshaes supplement.
With that being said nothing after the mid 80's is canon in my campaign. That means the garbage in FtA is not worth mentioning. Lolth will always be a Demon Queen.
I don't see how 4e has majorly changed Greyhawk. In fact, there are many core changes that are beneficial to the history of Greyhawk. Take Teleportation and Planar Travel. In all previous editions, it was very easy to Teleport and Fly around. It was so easy I felt the "missing" continents fluff was bogus. Why sail a ship to Fireland when Overland flight and Teleport with Error is cheaper than a galleon and readily available? Just put on a Ring of Sustenance, Drink potions of Remove Fatigue and fly the entire globe - done.
Scaling back spell power is very Greyhawk, that's one of the reasons I like 4e so much. I don't have to stress how Greyhawk is rather magic light. The fluff supported that good ole fashioned sweat needed to get the job done. Also, "martial" characters are no longer marginalized in 4e like they were in previous editions. You can play a Gord the Rogue character and not get pasted by the host of creatures immune to Sneak Attack/Backstab anymore.
The change in Demon/Devil is a bit more to my liking. I've run and played in Temple of Elemental Evil in every edition so far (I've converted it to 4e and I'm "steering" the characters to it after Return to Keep on the Borderlands ). Connecting Demons to Elemental Chaos more clearly defines their place in the universe. It also serves to abolish the needless symmetry that was so pervasive. Finally, I've seen nothing in the Demon Princes was changed, except that Yeenoghu was given a 2nd chance The chaotic nature of demons in 4e better serves the fluff that Orcus relinquished his role as Tenebrous.
Tieflings and Dragonborn:
Hmm... They've been around for a long time but their presence in GH, not so much. It's easy to point out that all non-humans are side lined in GH. I introduced Tieflings as the victims of misidentity. Cambions exist in GH, no reason to name drop there. Adding Tieflings was as simple as adding them to regions long associated with demons, devils, and curses - Great Kingdom, Northern Wastes, Bright Desert (technically a scorpion curse but good enough for me), Empire of Iuz, and Pomarj. Given the rich history of Cambions in GH, I don't see the addition of Tieflings as something radically new.
Dragonborn, on the other hand, are a bit more problematic. The only way I could introduce them was to stick them in areas with Lizardmen and wandering as mercenary nomads. I didn't want to stick them in "uncivilized regions" that already have an excellent background like Amedio Jungle. Refusing to give them a hone I stuck them in hostile areas that need warriors and gladiators. I would have dropped them but the players are interested so *shrug*
The changes in item creation gives players a reason to adventure. In 1e it wasn't easy to create magic items, not like in 3e. In 3e it was very easy to create magic items that were much higher than your level. Why quest when you could create items for less money then you could sell them? As Gygax said, "It's like cheating at Solitaire." The need to quest for items is the OD&D I remember. Artificers, Item Creation Feats, and 50% trade-in-value is not.
For me, the mechanics better supports the original fluff. Well, as for the new fluff... The new fluff is irrelevant whenever I want it to be.
I don't see how 4e has majorly changed Greyhawk. In fact, there are many core changes that are beneficial to the history of Greyhawk. Take Teleportation and Planar Travel. In all previous editions, it was very easy to Teleport and Fly around. It was so easy I felt the "missing" continents fluff was bogus. Why sail a ship to Fireland when Overland flight and Teleport with Error is cheaper than a galleon and readily available? Just put on a Ring of Sustenance, Drink potions of Remove Fatigue and fly the entire globe - done.
These abilities are only available to higher level adventurers, so I'd hardly call them common. What high level adventurers do(or can do) does not set the tone for a campaign world. Adventurers don't know how to get everywhere. Places are simply unknown to them, they don't know their way everywhere, and you can't just go down to the local open air market to pick up rings of sustenance and potions of remove fatigue by the crate. Besides, have you checked out how quickly the fly spell goes? 30 ft. per round? That is about 3.5 miles per hour. A person on foot can walk faster and cover more ground in a day than that, and if you do have crates of remove fatigue potions then you can go even farther than that. And does your wizard really have the ability to cast that many fly spells to begin with, or overland flight spells? That's a 5th level spell, yet it does last 1 hour per level. Still, do you have crates of potions of overland flight too? You better, but I don't think magic is quite that common in Greyhawk or anywhere else other than video-game campaign land where stores never run out of rare commodities(because they aren't rare to begin with). The PCs in my campaign don’t have money just pouring out of their pockets, so they don’t spend in on crates of potions and scrolls(not that they are there to buy anyways), and neither do they usually spend it on making such things themselves. With the addition of having to spend experience points when making magic items in 3.0/3.5e, the PCs and NPCs in my campaign at least are even more covetous of magic items, and are less likely to make them unless they are permanent and are specifically for themselves. That is some nicely built in magic control if you ask me.
As to services, just because the DMGs have given parameters for buying spell services, that doesn't mean some high level NPC doesn't have more important things to do that waste their time casting teleport without error to transport a bunch of schmucks to what is likely a dangerous adventure locale. 4e gives the impression that magic is readily accessible more so than any other edition by literally putting magic items in the equipment section of the PHB. Not only does this give the impression that magic is common, it sort of kills the mystery of it when every player knows everything about every magic item. DMs might as well chuck out the main list of items and make up their own instead, as that will put the mystery back in.
What you do in your own campaign is of course up to you, but I don't see 4e as toning down magic by any means. Anybody can use a potion, and even a scroll now, so I'd say that is proof enough that magic is just a power that, once put down on paper, can be used/abused by anyone- even those with literally no magical training whatsoever. 4e has opened up the use of magic, not curtailed it. As for me, instead of just flying/teleporting/plane shifting everywhere, the PCs in my campaign ride horses, sail on ships, and enjoy any encounters they have along the way.
I don't want to turn this into a flame thread but it's pretty clear that you're just making a knee jerk reaction and you're dead wrong on several areas.
The major difference between the previous editions is the lack of "Perpetual Motion" in 4e. In previous editions, as you'll soon see, rapid travel is often free and easy (note: if you can't keep a campaign going for 5 levels you need some DM help). It cost nothing and with the aid of other spells, it lasts forever. Wizards can cast many spells that cost nothing but a single round. In 4e magic, though available, is extremely expensive and fades. The fact that it's available is nothing new as far as previous editions are concerned. The fact that it costs a king's ransom when previously it was free is a massive change for the better. When it takes several hundred-thousand gold and an epic spell to teleport to an unknown location as opposed to under 3000gp the former seems like a much better reason to just take a boat.
Cebrion wrote:
AtomicPope wrote:
I don't see how 4e has majorly changed Greyhawk. In fact, there are many core changes that are beneficial to the history of Greyhawk. Take Teleportation and Planar Travel. In all previous editions, it was very easy to Teleport and Fly around. It was so easy I felt the "missing" continents fluff was bogus. Why sail a ship to Fireland when Overland flight and Teleport with Error is cheaper than a galleon and readily available? Just put on a Ring of Sustenance, Drink potions of Remove Fatigue and fly the entire globe - done.
These abilities are only available to higher level adventurers, so I'd hardly call them common. What high level adventurers do(or can do) does not set the tone for a campaign world. Adventurers don't know how to get everywhere. Places are simply unknown to them, they don't know their way everywhere, and you can't just go down to the local open air market to pick up rings of sustenance and potions of remove fatigue by the crate. Besides, have you checked out how quickly the fly spell goes? 30 ft. per round? That is about 3.5 miles per hour. A person on foot can walk faster and cover more ground in a day than that, and if you do have crates of remove fatigue potions then you can go even farther than that. And does your wizard really have the ability to cast that many fly spells to begin with, or overland flight spells? That's a 5th level spell, yet it does last 1 hour per level. Still, do you have crates of potions of overland flight too? You better, but I don't think magic is quite that common in Greyhawk or anywhere else other than video-game campaign land where stores never run out of rare commodities(because they aren't rare to begin with). The PCs in my campaign don’t have money just pouring out of their pockets, so they don’t spend in on crates of potions and scrolls(not that they are there to buy anyways), and neither do they usually spend it on making such things themselves. With the addition of having to spend experience points when making magic items in 3.0/3.5e, the PCs and NPCs in my campaign at least are even more covetous of magic items, and are less likely to make them unless they are permanent and are specifically for themselves. That is some nicely built in magic control if you ask me.
You're incorrect on several points:
* Fly is speed 90 (3.0 PHB page 206) - a person cannot cover the distance with a brisk walk quicker than a flyer. Ever.
* Expeditious Retreat stacks with flight improving the total speed to 120ft per round, not including running. Together they improve a character's normal flight to another character's run speed.
* Permanancy - it's a simple 5th level spell that makes this all possible on the cheap.
* Experience Points - experience points are meaningless to NPC's. They're a reward system for PC's. Don't think so? When have you ever docked an NPC experience points for not showing up? The answer is never. If experience points are so important then why sell any magic items at all? Magic items should never be for sale if exp was as important to NPC's are you're pretending it is. Then once you add the Arificer class and BoVD, the EXP cost is easily circumvented.
* Highlevel exclusiveness - 5th level is not high level in any edition of D&D, and 9th level is just mid-level. In 4e Wizards get access to Fly at 16th level, over three times the level of previous editions.
* NPC's in your campaign - It's all well and good to point out that NPC's in your campaign don't do this or that but we're not talking about campaigns, or your campaign, we're talking about system mechanics. If you want to talk canon, which I was doing, then canon NPC's are interested in circumnavigating the globe. I made a direct reference to Roger Moore's The Adventure Begins and sailing to Fireland. For less than half the cost of a standard expedition, you could magically equip a team of explorers that could fly indefinitely without the need of food or rest. Finding someone to cast a 5th level spell is much easier than forking over 30,000gp for a boat, plus crew, plus supplies.
Cebrion wrote:
As to services, just because the DMGs have given parameters for buying spell services, that doesn't mean some high level NPC doesn't have more important things to do that waste their time casting teleport without error to transport a bunch of schmucks to what is likely a dangerous adventure locale. 4e gives the impression that magic is readily accessible more so than any other edition by literally putting magic items in the equipment section of the PHB. Not only does this give the impression that magic is common, it sort of kills the mystery of it when every player knows everything about every magic item. DMs might as well chuck out the main list of items and make up their own instead, as that will put the mystery back in.
Nice display of double standards. Everything in the 3e PHB suggests that PC's can purchase spells because they're prices are located in the Equipment section. If PC's can't buy a 5th level spell when they're 7th level, why put it in the PHB? It sort of kills the mystery of exploration when every spell in the PHB is available for purchase. It's obvious that you're not interested in being even handed. The same analysis should be applied to the 3e PHB as the 4e. Instead, you resort to belittling a logical game solution. Should magic items be in the DMG? They shouldn't. The only purpose for magic items to exist is to serve, aid, and reward the players. By all counts they should have always been in the PHB - after all, it's a handbook that players are supposed to use. It's the handbook that is supposed to contain things for players.
I understand what you're saying about mystery but it rings hollow. In reality most players buy the DMG because it has magic items and/or they've taken item creation feats and they can't create wondrous items without it. In 4e the DMG has nothing a player needs. Everything in the 4e DMG is dedicated to campaign creation, monster creation, trap creation, diseases, environmental hazards, roleplaying, creating encounters (combat and noncombat) and handing out rewards (exp and treasure). Players don't buy the new DMG because it doesn't have magic items.
Cebrion wrote:
What you do in your own campaign is of course up to you, but I don't see 4e as toning down magic by any means. Anybody can use a potion, and even a scroll now, so I'd say that is proof enough that magic is just a power that, once put down on paper, can be used/abused by anyone- even those with literally no magical training whatsoever. 4e has opened up the use of magic, not curtailed it. As for me, instead of just flying/teleporting/plane shifting everywhere, the PCs in my campaign ride horses, sail on ships, and enjoy any encounters they have along the way.
Based on the fact that you've completely misinterpreted the 4e magic system, I'm not surprised. For starters, potions were always usable by anyone. Nothing new here. What is new is the limitations on magic items. Magic items cannot duplicate Class Powers. No scroll exist for class powers. No Potion exists for Class Powers. Can a scoll of Fly exist? No. Fly is a Wizard Utility power, not a Ritual Spell. It cannot exist. Spend some time researching the issues next time please.
A quick look at travel magic will clearly demonstrate how magic is less available in 4e. Lets look at Scroll cost shall we?
3e Teleport Without Error - Caster Level 13, cost 2,275gp
4e True Portal (the only teleport spell that doesn't need another teleportation circle) - Caster Level 28, cost 425,000gp
That makes your comments look pretty darn ridiculous. In 4e you can only teleport to known circles until you're epic level. That's a big limitation. A huge limitation. In 3e a 9th level character can teleport with no cost. In 4e you cannot teleport for free. Ever. It always cost money. The high cost changes everything. Now there is always risk vs reward. Campaign interrupting magic is tied to a great cost. In previous editions it didn't make sense that Demon Princes didn't stomp around where ever they pleased because planar travel and teleportation occurred free of charge. After all, you only needed to be 9th level to use planar travel, then teleport to your destination. In 3e at 13th level I could say, "Lets teleport to Fireland." *Poof* We're there. No cost. No miss chance. It's free, and I can get us all back in time for dinner.
No flaming intended at all, and you pointed out something I negligently missed- no scrolls for class powers. That is a very important distinction. There are rituals that allow for travel(linked portal, planar portal), so anybody can use scrolls of those(which goes more to my point). Some of the rituals do have very high level requirements though(true portal- 28th level). I expect a lot more class powers and rituals to show up in further books, and it will be interesting to see what levels are set for certain types of class powers and rituals.
As to what qualifies for high level in a campaign, I'll just leave you with one of my favorite 1e quotes:
"Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)." --DMG p. 39
I took that quote to heart(obviously), as I did the momentousness of actually reaching "name level" in 1e. "That's right Sir Bedvere! You're not a lowly "Justiciar" any longer- you're actually a full-on freakin' "Paladin" now big guy!" And then there are all of those legendary Greyhawk leaders and other NPCs in the 83’ boxed set who barely have levels in the double digits. To me, and many of the people I know, a PC being close to those levels *IS* high-level. This of course also goes to the original 1e adventures where levels 1-6 or so were "low level", 7-11 or so were "mid-level", and 12+ were "high level", so you are wrong about double digit levels not being considered "high level" in any edition of the game. GDQ for example was not a "mid-level" adventure. All of that has colored my view of what "high level" means, so it does seem a little bit over the top to me when people talk about magicking up a whole adventuring party for a first class flight on “Air Adventure”. This really is all a matter of perspective though, and one that has changed only slightly for me with the passing of the game editions.
It's much cheaper to buy passage on a ship than to literally buy a ship. I'd say that alone undercuts the costs of the magical expedition in prior game editions. Most DMs I know of don't have PCs in their campaigns who have tens of thousands of gold pieces in reserve just for travel expenses anyways. Fly speed is also 60 feet base per the SRD; 40 with a medium load(which would not be uncommon). But, I was going with overland flight as it has a duration of 1 hour /level, and which has a base speed of 40 feet; 30 feet with a medium load. Perhaps I should have assumed a light load though as each character would of course have the megabucks to spend on a a bag of holding and a handy haversack. I was speaking more in generalities though. I know 3.Xe sites the purchase of certain things like spells and items. I was merely inferring that such is still the way of things in 4e; not using any sort of double standard. 4e is not so much better, but for the most part is just more of the same(in this regard at least). Putting magic items in the PHB equipment section does give a certain impression about their availability though.
I only find it slightly odd that fly is such a high level power now, as not being able to be engaged by grounded enemies is such a huge advantage(16th level though?). I'll certainly agree with you that merely getting access to travel spells is now *MUCH* more delayed in 4e(I hadn't looked at the levels on *all* of the rituals in detail). We’ll need to wait and see how many new magic items will be added to sections like Potions and other more readily available one-shot items, and if there will be broader parameters set out for the Enchant Magic Item ritual. As it is now, I think it is a good thing to make the PCs slog it across the campaign world, as magic cannot so readily solve their travel problems quite as easily in 4e.
Yep. I’d have to be agreeing with you on most of your points, and with only a few exceptions.
"Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)." --DMG p. 39
hehehe
That reminds me of 1e level training. Wait! You're not 3rd level, you need to pass your exams. I miss level training
Sometimes. My monk I played for years, back in 1st Edition's hayday, lost twice (he had to fight for his levels). Falling a few levels behind is rough.
Back on topic. WotC said specifically they wanted to cut back on "travel spells" to make travel part of the adventure. As a DM, I like to showcase a vibrant setting like GH. That's one of the main reasons I turned to 4e. It allowed me to create a campaign with a sense of direction I like the idea that there are hidden portals all over Greyhawk (like in Against the Giants) which need to be disabled or destroyed to help win the war.
Actually, I'm running a Greyhawk Wars campaign. The PC's have traveled quite a bit already. They're 3rd level and still ride in caravans. When they're finished with this story arc they'll probably have their own horses. We'll see. I like the idea that characters need to roleplay in order to gain access to a city's Portals, beit a merchant's guild or Grey College. The task to gain favor is level based. For example, if they want to Portal Access to Greyhawk sooner then I'd like I'll make it a 6th level story quest - escort Ghent to Schwartzenbruin, you'll meet him in Highfolk - or something like that. The players then deal with annoying comic relief for a few sessions while skirting the Razing Line. At that point the game is less about me "steering" players and more about me challenging them. They get what they want - rapid travel to the City of Thieves - but they have to earn it. Therefore, I get what I want - a chance to foreshadow the War's outcome should the PC's lose sight of their goals.
As a DM I feel 4e allows more of a compromise between players themselves and with the DM. It's by no means perfect and there are still a few holes I'm sure. However, overlap of power is difficult to come by and travel magic is costly. Travel runs roughly around 1/2 base price of a magic item. That means if a player wants to "run off in a huff" it will cost him/her one magic item. It's not that people won't make foolish decisions. But it does mean they'll pay now AND later
Yes, but your fighters weren't creating clones of themselves or enchanting items or any number of other non-fightery things.
I do like the idea behind curtailing travel spells, but fly could have been much lower as it has a very limited duration. Limiting those spells that can be used to transport lots of individuals practically wherever they want is a good idea though. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Yes, but your fighters weren't creating clones of themselves or enchanting items or any number of other non-fightery things.
I do like the idea behind curtailing travel spells, but fly could have been much lower as it has a very limited duration. Limiting those spells that can be used to transport lots of individuals practically wherever they want is a good idea though.
Yeah, that's one of those sticky bits I'm not entirely sure about. Fly is limited to 5min in 4e. I don't know if it's simply a way to keep players from being nigh untouchable at lower levels to monsters or what but I assume that's the reason.
Players don't have nearly as much access to other "anti-monster" abilities like Invisibility anymore. In most cases it lasts until the end of your next turn. Wizards can turn people Invisible but it requires a standard action to maintain. Even most monsters don't have long lasting Invisibility powers. Same with Domination. It lasts for a few rounds or maybe til the end of the encounter. They've removed the ability to turn monsters into Animal Companions. Heck, they've removed Animal Companions
Yes, but your fighters weren't creating clones of themselves or enchanting items or any number of other non-fightery things.
Yeah, I'm probably going to houserule for no use of scrolls by pc's without the Ritual Caster feat, or maybe just the arcane and/or divine power source for your class. But then I never did like that higher level Thieves/Rogues could read scrolls in 1e and 2e.
Back on topic. WotC said specifically they wanted to cut back on "travel spells" to make travel part of the adventure
Isn't this the same company who exhorted DM's to cut out all the niggling details like describing dwaren caverns, because that is not FUN, and get to the action? What's the point of forcing people to travel, when you don't want people to spend time describing what they see on thier travels? It seems WotC has become very schizophrenic... they contradict themselves constanly. That's why I'll stick with 2nd Ed.
Back on topic. WotC said specifically they wanted to cut back on "travel spells" to make travel part of the adventure
Isn't this the same company who exhorted DM's to cut out all the niggling details like describing dwaren caverns, because that is not FUN, and get to the action? What's the point of forcing people to travel, when you don't want people to spend time describing what they see on thier travels? It seems WotC has become very schizophrenic... they contradict themselves constanly. That's why I'll stick with 2nd Ed.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean TSR?
No, he's talking about the WotC 4e design blog I believe, which he is paraphrasing. Maybe it is still up, and in its original form even. That blog generated a lot of "discussion" prior to the rules being released.
Overall it sort of passed over traveling and other aspects of the game(like hunting down supplies in town) as being completely boring, and so not worth doting on. I see that as being very good advice for those completley new to the game(and RPGs in general), and that likely don't know enough of the game to make these types of things fun. But, for those who have played RPGs for a while, and that know how to make pretty much any sort of event fun, the blog drew some heavy criticism.
No, he's talking about the WotC 4e design blog I believe, which he is paraphrasing. Maybe it is still up, and in its original form even. That blog generated a lot of "discussion" prior to the rules being released.
Overall it sort of passed over traveling and other aspects of the game(like hunting down supplies in town) as being completely boring, and so not worth doting on. I see that as being very good advice for those completley new to the game(and RPGs in general), and that likely don't know enough of the game to make these types of things fun. But, for those who have played RPGs for a while, and that know how to make pretty much any sort of event fun, the blog drew some heavy criticism.
Hmm...
Well I can't say that I know anything about it. But I can say that person is either being taken out of context or had very little impact on the 4e DMG. The 4e DMG is the most ROLEplay oriented DMG ever produced. It's obvious that the design was influenced by the Campaign and Catacombs Sourcebook Guide from 2e which is the exact opposite of everything that blog supposedly entails. Also, the DMG outlines the rigors of travel and survival in harsh environments. The DMG does make suggestions based on group interests, like CaCSbG, but understanding group interests is just part of being a good DM, anti-story/detail or not.
There were a few things that were described as not being "fun", so more than a few people ran with that. It is important to keep in mind that the articles that talked about this stuff came out as much as 4 months before the actual rulebooks did, so they gave a very iffy first impression of what would, and would not, be covered in the rulebooks. This generated a lot of wariness and discussion. People ought to actually check out the rulebooks to see how things turned out though, as many fears turned out to be unfounded.
Last edited by Cebrion on Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total
The 4e DMG is the most ROLEplay oriented DMG ever produced.
Funny, I find the 4e DMG to be too gamey, what with its focus specifically upon designing encounters. As some examples, in designing a warband, the DM is encouraged to think in terms of having leaders, lurkers, soldiers, and brutes rather than encouraging the DM to think in terms of an enemy despot with a spy ring, housecarls, and conscripts. In designing encounter terrain, the DM is encouraged to think in terms of how the enemy lurker can be best positioned or the soldier can create a bottleneck rather than designing what would be a logical stronghold for the despot.
The 4e DMG is the most ROLEplay oriented DMG ever produced.
Funny, I find the 4e DMG to be too gamey, what with its focus specifically upon designing encounters. As some examples, in designing a warband, the DM is encouraged to think in terms of having leaders, lurkers, soldiers, and brutes rather than encouraging the DM to think in terms of an enemy despot with a spy ring, housecarls, and conscripts. In designing encounter terrain, the DM is encouraged to think in terms of how the enemy lurker can be best positioned or the soldier can create a bottleneck rather than designing what would be a logical stronghold for the despot.
One thing the 4E DMG puts me in the mind of, is that they make the assumption that anyone writing an adventure or a campaign already kows to do those things, and they only need help with encounter design, and matching XP and Treasure to PC expectation. I'm not entirely sure that's a safe assumption (obviously is with this group, but I've seen some horror stories). But then again, they did cover some of those very same issues in the Dummies Guide to 4E (forgot exactly what it was called), though only in the most general sense. Because the encounter and adventure design theory of 4E is so unique (in terms of previous editions), I guess the writers felt it was more important to focus on them than on story, trusting that new DMs would figure it out, and old DMs would already know, so why bother repeating it now. Especially when you take into account the DMG II for 3.5 is still so new, and is still a good DM's resource even if the rules have changed. In a year or two, absolutely (after all it IS under the previous rules).
I am coming to the realization (after looking through the grey hairs in my head Greyhawk=Greyhairs) that I am truly a grognard!
Its not the most awesome feeling for me as I am normally very open minded, but you can't mess with my D&D history or concepts. 4th did that for me too many times. I can accept it for a game that emulates D&D for another home brew style. (which I indeed tried and do own sadly copies of the 4th core books )
So my two copper pieces, and my outdated electrum pieces!! I am a happy cranky grognard!
Thanks for your post GVD!
Jim
(BTW I am 37 and started playing D&D in 81 so I was 10!)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
