|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 2:03PM
#11
|
|
|
I think it is better to have D&D Next be such that you can use it to play any campain setting in any time period with any ruleset. Some FR players may want to play The Time of Troubles using a 4E Essentials ruleset. They should be able to. Let the DM and the DMG work on pairing the mechanics to the campaign setting and time period. Keep the rules the rules, and let "God" sort the rest out.
IIRC, there was a Ravenloft novel that introduced kender into FR. D&D is now a wacky IP, with all kinds of canon that breaks the rules. We need stronger DMs and stronger DM tools (like better DMGs) to help us sort through literally decades of authors adding their fluff and bias in order to use what we want to at our group's gaming table. That's not even taking Edition Wars into account. We can't pigeonhole settings to rules anymore than we can logically demand DMs abide by novelizations they don't want to.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 2:37PM
#12
|
|
|
With things like Living Greyhawk and Living FR that are going to have an assumed rules set I think it's a safe bet to say there will be some "ruleset" bias for certain campaign settings.
The accepted ruleset used for Living FR will most likely be the default used for Forgotten Realms product releases.
Or am I wrong here?
For a campaign setting of something such as Ravenloft an assumed ruleset that results in uber-powerful characters or high magic would go drastically against the intended feel of the grab your torches and pitchforks gothic horror that Ravenloft is intended to emulate.
So I think it's only natural that each Campaign setting will have to assume a default ruleset.
However I do strongly feel that it's important that every campaign setting be able to be used with any ruleset. Each gaming group is going to have it's own ideas on what ruleset they want to use. That ruleset shouldn't pigeonhole you to a limited choice of campaign setting.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:59AM
#13
|
|
|
Yes. Seems obvious, but better said I guess.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 10:37AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I think the designers should do this...
1. Yes make the campaign settings different in how they treat the races.
2. Identify the races that are common in the setting.
3. Provide some explanations for how to integrate those races that are not common for those that want them.
A. One explanation would be reflavoring.
B. Another would be special cases (see below)
Here is an example of how to handle the Warforged in Greyhawk
The warforged is common only in Eberron. In Greyhawk, they are lone constructs crafted by powerful magic. As a result of some circumstance, the warforged has become free of his master and is now an independent agent. He will arouse interest as an oddity but golems are not unheard of and people won't be intrinsically afraid of or against the golem.
Here is an example of how to handle Dragonborn in Forgotten Realms (pre-4e)
Option #1:
On year XYZ, the archmagi ABC opened a portal to another world. He made contact with another race, the Dragonborn. Eventually Dragonborn began to travel into this world and they are now seen rarely throughout the realms.
Option #2:
The dragonborn seized the portal and poured through in a campaign of conquest. After a fierce war the dragonborn were driven back and the gate closed but many dragonborn were stranded on this side. Since the war they have formed their own culture in this world.
|
|
|
