I thought I'd start a new thread rather than continue an old one, to speak about one specific revelation based on something that someone said:

Quote from: Windjammer;297335As to the middle paragraph ("The best settings have deliberately made choices about..."). I think 4E doesn't impact the fact that any DM can calibrate his campaign by restricting the races allowed to players in that campaign. BUT. I can't imagine something like that to apply to the RPGA and its Living Forgotten Realms. It thus follows that the new Realms are certainly a more exotic place than they used to, and that future FR products (well, DDI articles since we won't see further books) will have to address the continual over-crowding with new "core" races and classes.

And this, THIS, is a massive problem. It means that every setting turns into Eberron. A pre-fab piece of shit whose only real quality is that you can play absolutely every class, it has absolutely every race, every monster from the manual must be there, and there's no real sense of uniqueness or individuality, nor does anything eventually even make sense, because you have to just have new races and classes and monsters constantly showing up in the Realms (or Dragonlance, or wherever) and the setting loses all sense of emulation.

Likewise, if everything is core, you can't have any setting where there is a class, race, or monster that doesn't exist elsewhere.

RPGPundit

That's a problem indeed, if WotC doesn't backtrack on the "everything's core" BS, of course, and they might do just that in the future. It wouldn't be the first time WotC said one thing to do its opposite in the next few months... *cough cough*

Back in my Rifts days, I found amongst the local culture there was a certain chilling effect when it came to Earth and the GM's freedom in it.  Because of the near constant flow of Rifts Insert-Region-Here books, the GMs and even the players, were very, very hesitant to go out and invent their own ideas of what a given area would be like, because they knew that sooner or later, Palladium would come along and drop a sourcebook for it, and screw it all to hell.

Quote from: J Arcane;297854Palladium would come along and drop a sourcebook for it, and screw it all to hell.

Would it have been a big deal to ignore such a sourcebook, at least until the campaign was over ?

Quote from: RPGPundit;297846And this, THIS, is a massive problem. It means that every setting turns into Eberron.

I think you got a bit of a blind spot for Eberron. But the quote is still apt.

When the Eberron Campaign Setting first came out, there was a definite sense of it having a delineated identity by taking a stance on what's in and what's out. The problem was rather that, piling supplement after supplement onto the campaign world, that stance got diluted pretty quickly.

And that's my fear with the new Realms. The new Realms started out by making strange allowances such as including warforged, a race that got written Eberron all over it. It's those things which pissed off a good portion of the older Realms fans.

Ok, so let that be settled: as of now, it's clear (I think) who likes the new Realms and who doesn't. People have made their stance, some more reluctantly than others, based on the initial stance that was taken on the Realms in the 2008 Campaign Guide. But wait until PHB 3 comes out next year, what with its psionic races and classes. The inclusion of psionics in D&D has always divided the modern (post 1E) fanbase of D&D into "strongly pro" and "strongly against" factions.

That's the problem, right there. It's a problem the true extent of which we'll only see once it's escalating even further (as was the case in the Eberron fanbase). And escalating it is, because it's a one way deterioriation with nothing going the other way.

The other problem, of course, is a strictly RPGA-based one. In a home campaign a DM can either say "no psionics in the Realms" or, if he's really hard pressed (by his players) to include psionics, to say "alright, psionic races hail from that region over there (points to the East, say)" (and thus fill a gap which the new FR Camaign Guide doges for, e.g., warforged).

Well, in the RPGA a DM can actually pretty much say neither. While the way a Living campaign world is cut up into regions has softened a great deal (it's no longer "all players in Washington must hail from, and mostly play in, region X"), there's no way to say "if you play a psionic character, your character must hail from this one and only place". Psionics must hail from all over Faerun.

And what goes for psionics goes for all the rest. And that's the problem in a nutshell. Every freaking village will be a Sigil.

I don't think the "everything is Core" problem will generate bland, generic settings that are uninteresting - I think that it will cause the gamer buy in to play in those settings become exhorbitant. For Eberron 4E, this means that to play in the setting a DM will need the PHB, PHB2, DMG, MM, and MM2 while a player will need the PHB and PHB2. That's a lot of books to buy just for a campaign setting that should be self-contained.

Quote from: Windjammer;297872I think you got a bit of a blind spot for Eberron. But the quote is still apt.

When the Eberron Campaign Setting first came out, there was a definite sense of it having a delineated identity by taking a stance on what's in and what's out. The problem was rather that, piling supplement after supplement onto the campaign world, that stance got diluted pretty quickly.

And that's my fear with the new Realms. The new Realms started out by making strange allowances such as including warforged, a race that got written Eberron all over it. It's those things which pissed off a good portion of the older Realms fans.

Ok, so let that be settled: as of now, it's clear (I think) who likes the new Realms and who doesn't. People have made their stance, some more reluctantly than others, based on the initial stance that was taken on the Realms in the 2008 Campaign Guide. But wait until PHB 3 comes out next year, what with its psionic races and classes. The inclusion of psionics in D&D has always divided the modern (post 1E) fanbase of D&D into "strongly pro" and "strongly against" factions.

That's the problem, right there. It's a problem the true extent of which we'll only see once it's truly escalating (as was the case in the Eberron fanbase). And escalating it is, because it's a one way deterioriation with nothing going the other way.

The other problem, of course, is a strictly RPGA-based one. In a home campaign a DM can either say "no psionics in the Realms" or, if he's really hard pressed (by his players) to include psionics, to say "alright, psionic races hail from that region over there (points to the East, say)" (and thus fill a gap which the new FR Camaign Guide doges for, e.g., warforged).

Well, in the RPGA a DM can actually pretty much say neither. While the way a Living campaign world is cut up into regions has softened a great deal (it's no longer "all players in Washington must hail from, and mostly play in, region X"), there's no way to say "if you play a psionic character, your character must hail from this one and only place". Psionics must hail from all over Faerun.

And what goes for psionics goes for all the rest. And that's the problem in a nutshell. Every freaking village will be a Sigil.

1. In LFR the PCs are considered to be the only real heroes in any given area, other than bad guys that they have to fight. So it isn't so much a case of a village being SIGIL, it's a case of each village having it's own version of the X-Men. People can squeal about that all they want, but it's pretty awesome.

2. Psionics were included in the core rules (with stuff availabe int eh PHB and DMG) in AD&D1e, from the very first printing. Although they were included as an option, they were clearly part of the AD&D1e Rules. This part was taken OUT in 2e.  

3. Warforged are merely intelligence constructs, which are not exactly a new concept.

4. The core tenet of Eberron is: If it's in D&D, it has a place in Eberron. Although I do think they changed too much of what went in Eberron. (For example, Mind Flayers were re-written as creatures that hailed from the plane of Xoriat or something..)

5. Tightly controlled settings were one of the worst things that ever happened to D&D. In the time before we had settings, if something appeared in the Monster Manual (or the Fiend Folio, or even Deities and Demigods) it was something we all considered a possibility-- it could happen in a game at the DMs whim. I think that was nothing but good. Many players never even bothered to ask the DM what deities were in the setting. They would just write down "Thor" or "Zeus" or "Yama" without a second thought.

This was good.

Quote from: RPGPundit;297846Likewise, if everything is core, you can't have any setting where there is a class, race, or monster that doesn't exist elsewhere.

It's good for sales, but crappy for settings.

I suspect this "everything is core" will get modified to "class, race, monsters of XYZ would be exceedingly rare in this setting" and drop the hint,hint to make the non-setting bits be less desirable as choices.

Kinda like TSR did with Kara-Tur and Al-Qadim.   You could bring your normal D&D character there, but such characters would be social outcasts and considered weirdos.  

Spelljammer would be a fine "everything is core" setting.   I am really hoping they give us some SJ after they are done with Eberron which I'm not really interested in buying.

Quote from: boulet;297856Would it have been a big deal to ignore such a sourcebook, at least until the campaign was over ?

Nope.    However, the gamer retardation politely referred to as "canon junkies" can be a bitch to deal with.  I once ran "Shadowrun Bangkok" and I didn't have anything outside the core book.   This was fine for 5 of the 6 players.   The 6th guy was deeply nervous and confused for the entire game because we left the officially approved confines of Seattle.  

With Rifts and other heavy canon games, I use a strict rule.   Everything in the books are just rumors and hearsay.   The real truth is revealed in the campaign.

Quote from: Spinachcat;297882With Rifts and other heavy canon games, I use a strict rule. Everything in the books are just rumors and hearsay. The real truth is revealed in the campaign.

That sort of thing is good to make clear from the beginning so hardcore setting fans aren't tempted to whip out some obscure supplement or fiction paperback to contradict every other thing you say.  This isn't FR, it's FR'.

Quote from: Spinachcat;297882Everything in the books are just rumors and hearsay. The real truth is revealed in the campaign.

Thanks, that goes right onto the top of my player h/out for my upcoming Greyhawk campaign.

As for Spelljammer, one of the few things we know about DMG II coming this fall is that it will contain a full write up for Sigil in 4E. Again.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;2978805. Tightly controlled settings were one of the worst things that ever happened to D&D. In the time before we had settings, if something appeared in the Monster Manual (or the Fiend Folio, or even Deities and Demigods) it was something we all considered a possibility-- it could happen in a game at the DMs whim. I think that was nothing but good. Many players never even bothered to ask the DM what deities were in the setting. They would just write down "Thor" or "Zeus" or "Yama" without a second thought.

This was good.

So players not caring what deities are in the campaign world is good?  Having flavorless, generic D&D is good?

Part of the fun about playing a pregenerated campaign world is that it won't be everything in a bucket!

To be sure canon should last about as long as it takes a gamegroup to get a hold of the rulesbook, but if every world is basically all the same stuff, why even play it?

Heck, I am making my own campaign world (well rererererevising it anyhow) and lots of the official D&D bits aren't there.  No Gnomes or Halflings, only 2 types of dragon, FAAAR less sentient races (with some leeway for experiments or short run in the genetic sweepstakes ones), and so on.

I want the world to feel different from generic world where you whackinate things for phat loots A-x98.

And going back to the original topic point.

Um... this is D&D. There is a cosmology.  There are at least 2 worlds/pocket dimensions where everyone from every D&D world can end up on.  (Ravenloft and Sigil/outerplanes) Not to mention Spelljammer ships.

There is NO reason to forcefit all this new dumb shit into each officially supported game world.  Someone wants to play a suckass Warforged thing from Eberron (the man of poor tastes' Iron Kingdoms)?  Cool.  But they aren't from Faerun.

You wanna play a Krynn Irda?  Go ahead.  Your PC is.. FROM KRYNN.  It doesn't need to be shoehorned into the isle of "Was never there before" off the coast of Waterdeep.

It could make for fun fish out of water stories.  Or is D&D not allowed interesting RP options and stories now since that would interfere with moving the toy soldiers around and planning out some retarded talent tree?

I was even gonna do a FR campaign with a massively house ruled 2nd ed AD&D.  Basically it was any race or class from 1-2nd eds provided I allowed it first.  (Some things like 1st ed Barbarians and Cavaliers and various races and kits were broken or overly complicated and were disallowed on a "Get this shit out of my face dude NO WAY IN HELL ARE YOU RUNNING THAT" basis.)  Everyone plopping together on one world from all over the multiverse in a place that frankly could care less provided you weren't trying to kill innocent people (Phlan, of Pool of Radiance fame) and trying to get along would be lots of fun.  

Shoehorning Mul Gladiators into the setting would have been retarded.  Having the tale of how one got to Phlan from Athas and then TOTALLY TRIPPING BALLS from seeing tons of grass and a massive sea right outside the city is not.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;297887So players not caring what deities are in the campaign world is good?  Having flavorless, generic D&D is good?

Part of the fun about playing a pregenerated campaign world is that it won't be everything in a bucket!

I whole-heartedly agree. Restricting characters to a particular game world provokes more interesting choices, and ensures that every campaign isn't the same thing.

@AM. I find it fundamentally odd to praise "Everything is core" as a celebration of DM empowerment. The only whims left to such DMs are whims of exclusion. And the RPGA doesn't even allow them such whims. If I ever found a DM who wouldn't let me play a new class in the last issue of E-Dragon, I'd (successfully) file a letter of complaint forcing him to revoke that decision.

Surprising players requires the unexpected and the optional (you wrote "possibilities"). When everything is core, nothing is optional. When everything is in DDI, nothing is unexpected. It was hard enough to surprise players in 3E, what with every bloody book online as a PDF for everyone to see. DIY is the only way left, and 4E certainly has made DIY easier (one thing I like a lot about 4E). In contexts where DIY is permitted, of course.

Windjammer : RPGA DMs agree to play by the rules, which including allowing all official WOTC stuff at their table.  They should abide by those rules.

I just don't see what the problem with "everything is core" is.  I'm running a homebrew setting with custom gods, magic background and a list of common races that predates the PHB2.  And I have yet to see anything come out of a WOTC book or online update that can't be stuck in there, without changing any of the setting assumptions, with an inconsequential amount of work.  High fantasy is more flexible than you give it credit for.

Quote from: Windjammer;297897Surprising players requires the unexpected and the optional (you wrote "possibilities"). When everything is core, nothing is optional. .

Wrong. When everything is core, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. What you suggest is simply allowing there to be an established list of approved setting elements that cannot be deviated from. That makes them predictable. This is simply logic.

By contrast, allowing everything means allowing all possibilities. It also means when a player goes out and buys the complete book of minotaurs or whatever, he can play the minotaur in the campaign without getting a special dispensation from the pope.
I think you guys live in the realm of simulation so deeply sometimes you forget that people actually play these games for fun. And in agame, in a 4-5 hour liminal space.. you are simply not going to encounter every single thing in every book. Possible, not mandatory.  I hereby guarantee that you will never play in an adventure that features every single class, race, item, and monster in the same session. You will likewise be denied the right to say "but shadar-kai (or whatever else) don't exist in Faerun, it's not canon!"

It's probably important to note here that Ed Greenwood himself is the head of a committee that reviews and signs off on each and every single Living Realms adventure.

In other news I'm not sure what a Captain Rufus "talent tree" is or what it has to do with 4e.