Quote from: Abyssal Maw;297925You will likewise be denied the right to say "but shadar-kai (or whatever else) don't exist in Faerun, it's not canon!"

I hardly see how a marketing ploy is going to prevent me from being the ultimate arbiter of my own campaigns.

That said, at what point did being denied the right to do things as a GM count as a feature?

Quote from: The Worid;297929I hardly see how a marketing ploy is going to prevent me from being the ultimate arbiter of my own campaigns.

That said, at what point did being denied the right to do things as a GM count as a feature?

The GM hasn't been denied anything. I think sometimes you guys forget whether you are talking about D&D4e or the Living Realms campaign, or anything else. Half of you seem unclear what you are talking about in any case.

Listen, the fucking PATHFINDER campaign has rules they make their DMs adhere to as well, is this actually a thinly veiled thread about how much Paizo sucks?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;297930The GM hasn't been denied anything.

Your quote in my last post would beg to differ. Did you mean to make a distinction between what the players could claim and the GM could claim?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;297930Listen, the fucking PATHFINDER campaign has rules they make their DMs adhere to as well, is this actually a thinly veiled thread about how much Paizo sucks?

Is this a thinly veiled attack about how much Pathfinder sucks indeed?

Dude, get your head out of your ass. Realize that positive Pathfinder conversations do not mean "4e sucks", and you'll be much happier around these parts, I believe.

Quote from: Benoist;297934Is this a thinly veiled attack about how much Pathfinder sucks indeed?

Dude, get your head out of your ass. Realize that positive Pathfinder conversations do not mean "4e sucks", and you'll be much happier around these parts, I believe.

That's your criticism, not mine. I think Pathfinder is just fine.

Yet, you guys seem to have outlined several things you think suck, and are unforgivable, and they all apply to Pathfinder's living campaign equally as well. (such as a set of guidelines that GMs have to adhere to in order to run adventures in the campaign).

I think the real issue is that none of you guys really know what you are upset about at all, you just need an excuse to squeal.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;297938I think the real issue is that none of you guys really know what you are upset about at all, you just need an excuse to squeal.

What makes you think that? I'm on record for being upset about one thing in 4E mostly, and that has to do with the RPGA influence on designing the ruleset. I'm on record over at paizo.com for being equally worried about how much the constraints of the upcoming Pathfinder Society games (they won't hit Europe until June I think) have had an impact on the new ruleset. If you ask me, wanting to have a ruleset in print is much more of a desideratum for setting up organized play than it is for serving extant 3E home-run games consisting of Adventure Path subscribers.

So, not only am I consistent in my worries, I'm also entirely scrupulous in keeping 4E and its organized play format (LFR) distinct in voicing these worries, contrary to your allegation above.

I'd kindly ask you to either pay more attention to the postings you are responding to or refrain from responding to them. Because, frankly, you are wasting my time.

My stance is simple and I don't care if Hargrave spins in his coffin. You don't have a setting if you don't have items that are not in it, you just have a free-for-all.

Even my Champions campaigns have elements that do not exist and are better for thier omission.

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

Generic D&D doesn't mean flavorless.  Most people's homebrews are pretty generic and hopefully with a twist of lime.   Few DMs have the talent to homebrew a truly new and exciting world that works.

Personally, I do miss the mythological gods in D&D.  It was fun to have somebody just sit down and say "I'm a cleric of Thor!" and nobody needed to figure out what splatbook their deity came from.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;297887Or 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?

Nope.  No more RP in 4e.  Just talent trees.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;297925It'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.

The LFR writer guidelines do a good job aiming the writers at creating FR centric adventures.   So while the players can bring any PC into the Realms, the actual adventures are built on certain assumptions of tone and content appropriate for the setting.   Of course, FR has always been an (almost) everything goes style world.  

However, it does get odd during play because of unlimited PC choice.   It often has that Rifts feel of a traveling freakshow instead of the 1e Faux-Fellowship.

Quote from: Spinachcat;297950However, it does get odd during play because of unlimited PC choice.   It often has that Rifts feel of a traveling freakshow instead of the 1e Faux-Fellowship.

Sometimes it does. I am really hoping to see Adventuring Companies take off as a sort of remedy to this-- at least the freakshow would have cool uniforms.

I was in a group the other day where I was one of two dhampyrs. We didn't recognize each other as vampiric until nearly the end of the adventure when I tried to negotiate with a restless undead spirit by saying "Look, I too have walked on your side of the veil..." and the other guy was saying "wait.. me too!'

When they tell me "everything is core" what I really want to hear is "everything that's officially released is playtested and reasonably balanced against one another (classes, spells)".  I don't need ultimate mechanical equivalence.  But it'd be nice if I could give something a once-over and say "yeah, go ahead with that for now" actually having some confidence that the power-creep gremlins aren't going to mysteriously kick in five levels later and cause a headache.

Frankly, I can't puzzle out exactly what they mean in the long run by "everything is core".  Every concept I can come up with for what it might mean ends up being a meaningless statement. *shrug*

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;297938That's your criticism, not mine. I think Pathfinder is just fine.

Yet, you guys seem to have outlined several things you think suck, and are unforgivable, and they all apply to Pathfinder's living campaign equally as well. (such as a set of guidelines that GMs have to adhere to in order to run adventures in the campaign).

I think the real issue is that none of you guys really know what you are upset about at all, you just need an excuse to squeal.

Abby, every post you make is a squeal...so you're one to talk.

I'd prefer it if there was "core" D&D, and then some classes and features that were unique to individual campaign settings. If that doesn't happen, it's not the end of the world, but it ensures that each campaign setting has its own individual vibe. For example, Kender do not belong in Ravenloft. It's like fitting a square peg in a round hole. Psionics doesn't feel appropriate in either Birthright or Dragonlance. These are examples of certain things that don't feel "right" in a certain setting, and you know what? That ain't a sin. But we'll see what WoTC does...

Well taking a look at WotC release list for 2009 they list a lot of things as "D&D core". But they dont list Eberron as core. So do they mean everything thing so far is core? Meaning things involving Eberron are optional? (I know they intergrated Warforged into FR, but you know what I mean.) Or heres the grand thought of mine is the statement every thing is core. Just a ploy to get you to buy everything that comes out in the mistaken idea that you really need this to have everything you need?

Here's a great quote. I leave it to you to figure out how its content fares in relation to 4E and "everything is core" (I don't think the answer is clear cut, that's why).

Quote from: Daniel Collins (emphasis in the original)What Made Original D&D Great?

DEPTH OF THE GAME CAMPAIGN. One of the most effective devices that E. Gary Gygax (henceforth, EGG) used to give the AD&D game a marvelous (read: ancient, arcane, mysterious) feeling of depth and complexity was this: the inclusion of items, adventures, and scenes that might not be found by players. That is, there were some mysteries in the World of Greyhawk campaign that indeed might only be found by the most creative and inspired and skillful players, and missed by all others: it was indeed very special if these mysteries were found out. Contrast this with the motivation most module designers have, either based on a sensation that any important campaign point (that is, time spent designing) should be revealed to players, or else a need for the players to succeed and proceed to the next module in a series (or episode in an adventure), which generally directs the players into pre-orchestrated modes of action.

Source: http://www.superdan.net/grtdnd/grtdnd1.html

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.

RPGPundit

i guess i better not tell wizards that when i play eberron, i don't use psionics-based monsters, races, or classes. they might come over and take away my dm license.

Quote from: VectorSigma;297959When they tell me "everything is core" what I really want to hear is "everything that's officially released is playtested and reasonably balanced against one another (classes, spells)".  I don't need ultimate mechanical equivalence.  But it'd be nice if I could give something a once-over and say "yeah, go ahead with that for now" actually having some confidence that the power-creep gremlins aren't going to mysteriously kick in five levels later and cause a headache.

This.