Post/Author/DateTime	Post
caeruleus 08-29-07, 03:33 AM	This article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070829a), posted on the D&D website, talks about an assumption that 4e will be making about the game setting - that civilization is not widespread, and most of the land is wilderness. I do not want to talk about 4e in this thread; rather I'd like to talk about what this model means for a campaign. I've run campaigns like this before. Civilization must always struggle to exist. There is little to no communication between cities. When I do this, I often imagine things being slightly more primitive (not stone age, but not a standard medieval setting either), something like the Hyborian Age in which Conan adventured. What do you think of this sort of setting? Do you like it, or do you prefer settings with large nation states?
empty 08-29-07, 04:08 AM	Hasn't that always been the case in the DnD core books? That the world is filled with bigger and smaller cities, and a lot of dangerous terrain in between, making both trading and traveling difficult? Only the brave one (or stupid ones or desperate ones) tries traveling the wilderness? And merchants always having to pay mercenaries to protect them when traveling from city to city?
bonethug0108 08-29-07, 04:17 AM	I always run a high wildeness campaign. There are lots of little towns, but very few large, thriving cities. On a continent about the size of the U.S., you may have 3-5 large cities scattered to the winds, and mostly these are of the old standing races such as the elves and dwarves. I like that they are going to emphasize that idea. I think the large nation thing works for maybe eberron. As a base setting, the sprawling wilderness makes perfect sense and is what I have always done.
JulesCARV 08-29-07, 05:55 AM	And I thought that this was going to be about the program George H. W. Bush initiated in the early 1990s. I suppose often D&D settings are supposed to take place in a "dark age," where there was once an old civilization that produced magical artifacts (artifacts in the conventional, not D&D, sense) beyond anything that is currently possible, but that civilization has collapsed. (After all, you'd be a bit nuts to go exploring ancient ruins in the hopes of finding a 200 year old muzzle-loading rifle in the hopes of finding an effective weapon, when a modern civilian semi-automatic rifle is so much more effective, but in D&D, it's common to find a millenia-old year old sword that is much more powerful than any sword produced in recent memory.) Also, I'm not a member of D&D insider, so I haven't read the article I just read it, and it doesn't seem to change much. Regarding the "Points of Light" simile, that may be too optimistic. Urban, densely populated areas may not be safer than the wilderness that surrounds them. If you're from a small village, and an enemy tribe attacks it while you're off adventuring and sells them off as slaves to some wealthy, heavily defended slaver-city, then the fact that it's wealthy and heavily defended won't be of much comfort to you. The wilderness can be dangerous, but so can these "points of light." I've been playing Fallout 2 on a nostalgia trip recently, and while it's definitely not ordinary Swords & Sorcery fantasy, it has many similar elements: ancient artifacts of pre-nuclear holocaust technology, marauders and mutant monsters roaming the countryside, etc. (It's interesting that in the transition from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2, the Fallout world became somewhat more "Eberronian" -- supermutants and ghouls go from being virtually entirely antagonistic to being more mixed, much like orcs and goblins in Eberron. (Fallout 1's ghouls were, admittedly, probably mostly hostile because they were intimidated by Set, and Set was an authoritarian jackass, but still, the peaceful ghouls who dissented from Set's rule were the exceptions in Necropolis) Also, Fallout 2 has much more politics and urban areas (such as the struggle between Vault City, the New California Republic, and New Reno (specifically the Mordino family) to obtain control of Redding), although these are still the exception to the trackless wastes that cover most of post-holocaust California (and southern Oregon and western Nevada). Over all, I suppose it depends. Your campaign setting might take place mostly in the wilderness, or it might take place in a sprawling city, where the PCs find themselves caught in a battle between two crime families (one goblinoid family and one tiefling family) to control the distribution of opiates in the city.
bonethug0108 08-29-07, 06:21 AM	Also, I'm not a member of D&D insider. If you are a member of these boards you are a member of d&d insider. It is free right now and all you do is log in with the same name you use here. I understand if you choose not to be an insider, I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't that it is free right now.:)
Naderion 08-29-07, 07:09 AM	This model is the same as I'm using in the creation of my setting since three years. Also, it's the model used for middle-earth.
jaelis 08-29-07, 08:55 AM	It's a good model, but I hope the rules aren't too strongly based on it. I doubt they would be. But I certainly want to be able to run a more civilized style campaign if I feel like it. As a default though, I think it's a good idea. It's easier on the DM, offers straightforward reasons for the players to adventure, and easily leads to the idea of players carving out their own domains as they get powerful. (That's one of my favorite things from old-style dnd, but we don't use it so much now because it doesn't make much sense in more civilized settings.)
Kevtar 08-29-07, 09:12 AM	My most recent campaign was (is) a "nation-state" comprised of 8 provinces with each province having a major, metropolitan power center as its captial and severaly outlying cities throughout the area. It was a TON of work, as I broke each capital down to 24 districts, populated each district with some NPCs that might have a chance of meeting the PCs, and just creating the basics of what a D&D city should have. It took about 6 months of work, but I now have a very rich campaign setting filled with just about anything you want. However, there is one thing that I didn't take into account. One of the provinces in this setting is completely "uncivilized" (meaning industrially un-developed) and it is this province that holds the greatest mystery for my players. They are not awed the by "coruscant-esque" metrople that comprises most of the setting, but by the mysterious wilderness of "Kyrtchea." So, when the PCs want a fun romp in the city, they head to Stone Mountain, in Baneph province - a large, frontier-style town vis a vis "Call of the Wild." When they want political intrigue and an urban sprawl, then head to Millenium in Vhentemia province, the political power center of Bretnae (the name of the nation), and when they want to delve into the dark secrets of an unknown landscape, they sneak off to Kyrtchea. Still, even after all this work, I found myself longing for a simpler, less developed (read contrived possibly) setting where when the PCs hit the road, they really aren't sure what to expect - even if they know where they're going or how to get there. Cheers.
MerlintheTuna 08-29-07, 11:31 AM	I'm not clear on how this wasn't already the case. Generally speaking, worlds are big, and there just aren't enough people to cram small villages in next to each other Suburbia-style. And given that a town of dirt farmers doesn't have anything to export, I don't picture caravans coming in and out all of the time, and most worlds don't have telephone lines running from city to city. The end result is going to be poor communication and danger in the transitions. The idea of "the town sits around and hopes some heroes show up in their tavern" is a bit goofy for me -- I mean, even the town in The Three Amigos had the sense to send a message out -- but other than that, how else would things work? Also, where on earth are they getting these article titles from? "Party Roles" talks about the martial power source (and the title was later changed), and now "Points of Light?" Buh?
robertsconley 08-29-07, 12:00 PM	Points of Light reads like a marketing blurb for Wilderlands of High Fantasy. I am one of the authors and when I read "Points of Light" it was deja vu. Almost the same phrasing Necromancer, myself, and the other author use to describe the feel of the Wilderlands. Enjoy Rob Conley Links http://www.judgesguild.com/ http://secure1.white-wolf.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=64&products_id=670 a preview http://www.judgesguild.com/pdf/rorystone.pdf
Kensan_Oni 08-29-07, 12:13 PM	This is Mike Mearl's influnce on the game (See Iron Heroes (http://www.ptolus.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_IL) for direct reference). Mike really likes games that echo early City States or the Transition period between the Fall of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire, from what I can gather. As a default, it's not a bad way to go, although it aims a lot earlier then what people typically think of as the D&D setting. Most people (like me) tend to think of D&D as being set more forward then that, or more like the Constatine or Roman empire, where you have your solid nation or groups of nations, and outside it, you have the massive hordes of creatures trying to invade. The bright side is that this general assumption does give a break away from almost all extablished settings, which at the moment could seem pretty dull to people. It should appeal to those people who really like Conan. ... the downside is Conan is not how modern fantasy writers write their fiction. I've not seen fiction like that in some time, and as a default, it might be out of sync with the current times. Still, it is D&D, so it's not like anyone is going to run the default world in the book anyway. :)
Kevtar 08-29-07, 12:37 PM	Still, it is D&D, so it's not like anyone is going to run the default world in the book anyway. :) True - and it also reads like more of a rationale for adventuring and why cities like Saltmarsh and others don't form an alliance to destroy any existing monster-nations. The thing that always made me laugh in all editions of D&D when I was a player was how my DM would have us "summoned to Elminster" (for instance) and then he would have our party go on an adventure -- when really, all he had to do was think about how to solve the problem and it would have been taken care of. Hoepfully, that will addressed in 4e - something like, "DMs, we've been doing 'X' for 30+ yrs - move on."
VrecknidjX 08-29-07, 01:03 PM	It's fine by me, and makes for a good standard. However, I expect all kinds of alternative "defaults" to be made available by good, bad and other DMs pretty much as soon as 4e releases. Dave
Salla 08-29-07, 01:05 PM	Well, I have to admit, I dig Eberron, and a lot of its stylistic elements (such as large nation-states with patrolled borders and vaguely hostile intents to one another) tends to be creeping its way into my homebrews. On the other hand, I do alter the 'typical' setting to account for that. There are few large, roving bands of hostile humanoids ... they tend to form smaller, more concealable groups, and more of the enemies are PC races rather than monsters. On the whole, I'm pretty neutral on this front.
JulesCARV 08-29-07, 01:22 PM	Making traversing the countryside so difficult means that perhaps there are isolated areas which are essentially never accessed by road (or conventional overland travel) -- interaction with the outside world is basically through teleportation, long-range flight, or nothing at all.
caeruleus 08-29-07, 02:15 PM	I'm not clear on how this wasn't already the case. Generally speaking, worlds are big, and there just aren't enough people to cram small villages in next to each other Suburbia-style. And given that a town of dirt farmers doesn't have anything to export, I don't picture caravans coming in and out all of the time, and most worlds don't have telephone lines running from city to city. The end result is going to be poor communication and danger in the transitions. The idea of "the town sits around and hopes some heroes show up in their tavern" is a bit goofy for me -- I mean, even the town in The Three Amigos had the sense to send a message out -- but other than that, how else would things work? Yes, plenty of campaigns already employed this model. But for a counterexample, take the Forgotten Realms. In Cormyr, you got the Purple Dragons around to help people, not to mention the War Wizards. While there are always dangers, the roads within the kingdom are comparatively safe. Magic allows for rapid communication in this setting also. The article describes townsfolk as having no one to really turn to, unless adventurers happen to stop by. I suppose often D&D settings are supposed to take place in a "dark age," where there was once an old civilization that produced magical artifacts (artifacts in the conventional, not D&D, sense) beyond anything that is currently possible, but that civilization has collapsed. Yes, the assumption is that there were old civilizations that left ruins and treasures. But it need not take place in a dark age. The new civilization could be quite advanced, and still be only beginning to uncover some of these ruins (eg, delving into the pyramids early in the 20th century). I guess this "Points of Light" model is supposed to offer more options for the PCs. It makes it much more plausible that they are the ones who can make a difference, rather than just being pawns of epic level NPCs. (Although, I must say, given the 4e emphasis on this model, it's interesting that the Realms will be the first setting to receive support.) It reminds me of the Dragonlance setting when the original models were first published. The PCs first start hearing rumours of war long after the war had already started. Not much communication was going on at this time.
Jexil 08-29-07, 03:25 PM	In my own homebrew setting, much of the world is carved up into large nations. There are significant regions that are wild and unexplored, but civilization is fairly widespread and large cities are not uncommon. Trade & communication flow rather freely. What separates my campaign world from most, I think, is that humanity is not the dominant civilization. Only two kingdoms are primarily inhabited by humans, and almost every major humanoid race has its own nation state. Goblin's aren't just wild savages who lurk in the nearby forest--they're the ones running the kingdom next door. I figure why should core races have a monopoly on civilization? This kind of setting is fun to run, but requires a lot of work to prepare and maintain. I think I understand the reasoning behind the model world proposed for the 4th edition: it's very generic & universal, without a lot of heavy background material. You can pretty much take any concept or adventure idea and insert it somewhere into the world. Kind of reminds me of the campaign world I used back in 1st edition, where the setting of each module I bought was just beyond the next mountain range or forest the PC's crossed. Still, for now, I think I'll stick with my world of humanoid nations. The bright side is that this general assumption does give a break away from almost all extablished settings, which at the moment could seem pretty dull to people. It should appeal to those people who really like Conan. Except the Hyborean world is mostly comprised of large nation states which often contain numerous large cities. Although there are many dark & mysterious regions described in the Conan stories, civilization is hardly confined to a few scattered points of light.
Kensan_Oni 08-29-07, 08:23 PM	Except the Hyborean world is mostly comprised of large nation states which often contain numerous large cities. Although there are many dark & mysterious regions described in the Conan stories, civilization is hardly confined to a few scattered points of light. I don't know. I only read one of the books (Conan the Adventurer, I believe), and between that and the movies, that kinda supports that idea. The nations tend to be large and empty, territory claimed mainly by saying so, not by actual occupation, with fallen empires in between. Of course, considering it's a collection of short stories, I imagine a lot was glossed over. Like White glossing over the nations and classifications of life forms in the Sector General Series, and the glossing over of the Young Nations in Elric. Still, that absence of material could give you the points of light you need. (I really see Spartan Campaigns popping up in a year. Wait for it...)
CCS 08-29-07, 08:44 PM	Personally I (and the rest of the people I game with) pretty much just shrugged at this new Points-of-Light concept. And why not? Afterall, it's exactly how we play anyways regardless of the campaign setting - generic/Home brew, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Mystara, etc..... I mean, yes, there's plenty of cities & political bounderies to be found on those maps. But there's also huge empty areas inbetween. Plenty of space for gods-know-what to be lurking. The only setting I'm not familiar with is Ebberon. But I assume it has its fair share of "empty" space as well. And this isn't really any different from the real world of the middle ages (or long before/after). There were plenty of settlements, cities, areas of control, nations etc. But there was no instant communication & travel between them was slow, dangerous enough, and impractical for many. Now just imagine if there were manticores etc involved.... Hell, even here in the 21st cent. you can find plenty of places where travel is still slow, dangerous and impractical. And that's WITH modern tech, good comunications, & no chance of meeting manticores & such.
Man in the Funny Hat 08-29-07, 08:59 PM	Points of Light reads like a marketing blurb for Wilderlands of High Fantasy. I am one of the authors and when I read "Points of Light" it was deja vu. Almost the same phrasing Necromancer, myself, and the other author use to describe the feel of the Wilderlands. Enjoy Rob Conley Links http://www.judgesguild.com/ http://secure1.white-wolf.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=64&products_id=670 a preview http://www.judgesguild.com/pdf/rorystone.pdfYep. "Points of Light" is the definition of the Wilderlands which I use almost as-is. I do tend to add SOME political machinations; more than the Wilderlands might suggest, but it's much easier to do that with the Wilderlands than other settings as Wilderlands leaves ROOM for that kind of personalization. However, I think it should be noted that "Points of Light" is a description of the assumed default setting, just as Greyhawk was the default setting for 3E. It's just for purposes of providing examples. My understanding is that it is NOT intended as a format that other settings are SUPPOSED to follow. FR isn't going to become a "points of light" setting. Neither is Eberron, or Planescape, or whatever. I think they just settled on that idea because political and sociological intricacies are for the REAL settings to set forth, not the core rules. It isn't needed when simply laying out examples of gameplay in the core rules. So, rather than even refer to a specific setting by name there's just the nebulous "points of light" as a place reference.
primemover003 08-29-07, 09:03 PM	Yeah this approach to world building is easily compared to movies like the 13th Warrior, Dragonslayer, Conan the Barbarian, Lord of the Rings, Willow... worlds where getting from Point A to Point B is an adventure in itself. I dig it! Even though I'm on the fence about 4E I wonder if they've made Overland adventuring as dangerous to higher level PC's as it is at levels 1-5. Past that natural hazards are rarely a problem.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 08-29-07, 10:27 PM	I LOVE this setting, because I love that "Dark Age" Atmosphere, where Fear can be smelled in the Air, where people must struggle with everything they have to reach the next day, and because of that, commoners follow in a somewhat blind way everything that seem to be granting them Salvation of the Soul (and moreover, of the body)... where horrific Human Sacrifices to a Mysterious "Mountain God" or plagued villages are not a rare sight... I was getting tired of Faerun and all other settings where everything is already set, with few hidden mysteries left and the playing characters being just "someone who was born in that world by chance" (of course a DM can make everything he wants in the setting, but that's how it is basically)... On the other hand, after reading the article, one single question I did not find the answer to: If the villages are distant and barely defended (and the biggest cities aren't very much better), what keeps a horde of Gnolls and/or Orcs (not to talk about Giants, Drows or whatever you may want) from destroying everything, raping and raiding without limit, to end up crushing the Human race? I must say that haven't read all the (very long :D ) posts, so maybe you were already talking about all this... in that case, sorry... :rolleyes:
xXOblivionXx 08-29-07, 10:39 PM	On the other hand, after reading the article, one single question I did not find the answer to: If the villages are distant and barely defended (and the biggest cities aren't very much better), what keeps a horde of Gnolls and/or Orcs (not to talk about Giants, Drows or whatever you may want) from destroying everything, raping and raiding without limit, to end up crushing the Human race? It is probably because of the other monsters. The gnolls and the orcs are probably waging war against each other and the giants are killed by the monstrosities that lurk around the corner.
Jshock_75 08-29-07, 10:40 PM	Hmmm... I wonder if the prices for equipment are going to reflect the world model? When you have little to no trade between all those isolated villages, the price for useful things (weapons, armor, horses, etc) gets high quick. Small amounts of starting gold?
Shedeo 08-30-07, 12:54 AM	Hmmm... I wonder if the prices for equipment are going to reflect the world model? When you have little to no trade between all those isolated villages, the price for useful things (weapons, armor, horses, etc) gets high quick. Small amounts of starting gold? Saddly, I highly doubt this will be the case. The main continent of my setting has many, many large cities, built during an ancient empire. However, the lands between these cities were very dangerous.
Ludanto 08-30-07, 12:56 AM	On the other hand, after reading the article, one single question I did not find the answer to: If the villages are distant and barely defended (and the biggest cities aren't very much better), what keeps a horde of Gnolls and/or Orcs (not to talk about Giants, Drows or whatever you may want) from destroying everything, raping and raiding without limit, to end up crushing the Human race? Well, sometimes they do! Maybe they even take out a couple of towns before word gets to the capital and a unit of soldiers (or maybe just some PCs) are sent in to deal with it. And then there's the whole "fighting amongst themselves" thing.
MerlintheTuna 08-30-07, 01:29 AM	Hmmm... I wonder if the prices for equipment are going to reflect the world model? When you have little to no trade between all those isolated villages, the price for useful things (weapons, armor, horses, etc) gets high quick. Small amounts of starting gold?Conversely, if villages are in near-constant danger, smiths are somewhat obligated to keep weapons available so the town can defend itself, meaning they'll always be handy.
caeruleus 08-30-07, 03:51 AM	Hmmm... I wonder if the prices for equipment are going to reflect the world model? When you have little to no trade between all those isolated villages, the price for useful things (weapons, armor, horses, etc) gets high quick. Small amounts of starting gold? I dunno about regular equipment, but I think magic items won't be quite as available. They've said that they don't want much of a reliance on magic items. So I suspect that the default assumption will be that they won't generally be on the market. Suits me just fine. Another thing I like about this model is that the PCs can carve out a kingdom for themselves, since most of the land is unclaimed. All that's required is ridding it of most of the monsters, then attracting people to live there.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 08-30-07, 05:03 AM	Another thing I like about this model is that the PCs can carve out a kingdom for themselves, since most of the land is unclaimed. All that's required is ridding it of most of the monsters, then attracting people to live there. I like it too, since I've always adopted the "the group is the starring of the story, not just one meaningless part of the World, and it is destined to greatness" view... Yet, coming back to the "monsters riding limitlessly" matter, the Wars between them or small troops being sent after a village or two are taken down don't convince me much... there are so many monsters, and they are so Cruel... For an instance, Orcs that are battling the Gnolls should have an even greater reason to go raiding every Human village they see to take new food and resources to use in the War and "keep high the spirit of Battlers", let's say, and then burn down the entire place after they're done, so that no one can escape and go ask for help... And about the word spreading of a village taken down (not to talk that even the greatest kingdoms, as for what the article says, have not a so great militar power to afford to diminish it to send troops on the road), it would need someone that has fled from that village (alone on that dangerous road until the next village? Hardly he'd survive), or some traders that went to the village and found it ravaged, then turn back (but Orc sentinels would very probably capture them and make them forget what they saw by severing their heads from the shoulders)... and so on... Evil Dragons would claim theirselves as Gods or, at least, rulers in everywhere, and making this instead of slaughtering everyone, they would even show some sort of mercy that many other creatures wouldn't... I truly am concerned about this whole matter and how the developers plan to solve it... the only solution I can imagine is that Dwarves cleanse or at least protect the mountains, Elves make the same in the forests and wildlands, unseen by Humans, and so on... Anyway, this would mean that Elves, Dwarves and the others have much more militar power and fighting skills than Humans...
Zinegata 08-30-07, 06:55 AM	I'm not entirely excited about this either. I think that most DMs will tend to use their own settings anyway and work from there. On the other hand, a "high wilderness" campaign tends to be more credible when it comes to elevating a bunch of misfits into heroes. If traveling from one town to another is fairly dangerous, then the mere act of travel becomes quite heroic.
Kevtar 08-30-07, 07:13 AM	I dunno about regular equipment, but I think magic items won't be quite as available. They've said that they don't want much of a reliance on magic items. So I suspect that the default assumption will be that they won't generally be on the market. Suits me just fine. My sentiments exactly - I had a player once ask me about a high-level magical sword the party discovered in a Dragon's Hoard. The Paladin: "I take the sword to the mage and ask her to identfy it.":D The Wizard: "It's a +4 Flaming, Dancing Sword":bored: The Paladin: (looking at me (The DM) "Aww.. I wanted a Hoy Avenger!":bigeyes: Me: "It's a +4 Flaming, Dancing Sword.":rolleye2: The Paladin: "Well, when we get to town we can just sell this loot and buy a Holy Avenger... :D You see, he was on the pathto the Holy Avenger - I knew he wanted it, and he was going to get it, but there were some story elements the party needed to complete. However, this wasn't the worst of it... The worst part is... You shouldn't BUY a Holy Avenger!:banghead: Did Arthur BUY Excalibur? No! Did Elric get Stormbringer on a lay-a-way program? No! One of my biggest gripes has been how my 3.5 groups have assumed all goods are commercial goods - everything is negotiable and available. That type of consumptive D&D playing doesn't float with me, and sometimes causes frustration with my players (who are typically my sons' and their friends - all teenagers, and all whom 3.5 is their ONLY D&D experience).
Salla 08-30-07, 01:25 PM	To a degree, however, Kevtar, that's logical. In a world where magic exists, and is understood to the degree it is in D&D (it can be learned, schools exist to teach it, and it behaves in predictable, determinable ways), it should have an effect on society. One of those ways is that it would become a commodity, so items that people would need on a regular basis should be available, magical or no. It would be like if batteries were hard to acquire in the real world; we know how electricity works, and we can harness it; D&D people know how magic works, and they can harness it. Excalibur and Stormbringer would be Legacy Weapons, anyway, if not outright artifacts; they're singular, so that's a false analogy. A better analogy, I think, would be comparing a +1 sword to a commonly available commercial gun you can pick up at Wal-Mart, and the Holy Avenger to, say, an AK-47. It exists, and you can get it, it's just nowhere near as easy (or cheap).
caeruleus 08-30-07, 01:42 PM	Yet, coming back to the "monsters riding limitlessly" matter, the Wars between them or small troops being sent after a village or two are taken down don't convince me much... there are so many monsters, and they are so Cruel... For an instance, Orcs that are battling the Gnolls should have an even greater reason to go raiding every Human village they see to take new food and resources to use in the War and "keep high the spirit of Battlers", let's say, and then burn down the entire place after they're done, so that no one can escape and go ask for help... And about the word spreading of a village taken down (not to talk that even the greatest kingdoms, as for what the article says, have not a so great militar power to afford to diminish it to send troops on the road), it would need someone that has fled from that village (alone on that dangerous road until the next village? Hardly he'd survive), or some traders that went to the village and found it ravaged, then turn back (but Orc sentinels would very probably capture them and make them forget what they saw by severing their heads from the shoulders)... and so on... Evil Dragons would claim theirselves as Gods or, at least, rulers in everywhere, and making this instead of slaughtering everyone, they would even show some sort of mercy that many other creatures wouldn't... I truly am concerned about this whole matter and how the developers plan to solve it... the only solution I can imagine is that Dwarves cleanse or at least protect the mountains, Elves make the same in the forests and wildlands, unseen by Humans, and so on... Anyway, this would mean that Elves, Dwarves and the others have much more militar power and fighting skills than Humans... I don't think this needs to be the case. The PCs are exceptional, but that doesn't mean human NPCs are totally incapable of fighting. The peasants of a village can form a militia to fight off the odd raid, with varying degrees of success. Remember, after all, that PCs are also supposed to be superior to your typical orc or goblin. I believe one of the 4e developers said something about putting his 1st level PCs against 20 goblins, and it was a fair fight. So human peasants need not be totally defenseless. They will just be unlikely to go on overland journeys without protection. Perhaps they ask adventurers for help when the orc raiders are massing a larger force. Or perhaps they ask for help when they want someone to invade their orcs' lair to put a stop to the raids. Individual raids, after all, may cause a death and the loss of resources, without wiping out the community altogether. (The orcs may realize that wiping them out eliminates a source of resources.) And, of course, some settlements may indeed be wiped out completely from time to time. To a degree, however, Kevtar, that's logical. In a world where magic exists, and is understood to the degree it is in D&D (it can be learned, schools exist to teach it, and it behaves in predictable, determinable ways), it should have an effect on society. One of those ways is that it would become a commodity, so items that people would need on a regular basis should be available, magical or no. It would be like if batteries were hard to acquire in the real world; we know how electricity works, and we can harness it; D&D people know how magic works, and they can harness it. Except that you shouldn't apply modern economics to any pre-modern society. What you describe is certainly possible for a campaign, it's just not inevitable. If adventurers are rare, perhaps there wouldn't be much demand. Perhaps nobles see more value in land than in magic. Perhaps wizards don't want their magic made readily available to others.
Clawhound 08-30-07, 02:03 PM	Baker is setting up a rationale for "freedom of action unencumbered by law." How may paladins have said, "We need to capture them and take them to the law." Well, in the default setting, there ain't no law. With little law, this greatly frees the game designers to make games that can ignore where they are. It greatly simplifies the writer's job of writing an interesting module. No one in the future will create some story arc that any writer needs to know. Hire a new writer. Let him write. Hire a new novelest. Let them write. There is no continuity to worry about. One problem with existing campaign settings (such has Eberron) is that to develop for them, you must know them. This little fact weeds out many potential writers from WotC's employ.
Jexil 08-30-07, 02:22 PM	I don't know. I only read one of the books (Conan the Adventurer, I believe), and between that and the movies, that kinda supports that idea. The nations tend to be large and empty, territory claimed mainly by saying so, not by actual occupation, with fallen empires in between. I tend to think that people who "really like Conan" would prefer a campaign world based on Howard's stories rather than the movies. Like I said, many of Howard's stories take place in remote & uncivilized regions. Nevertheless, if you've read many of Howard's works or even seen a detailed map of the Hyborean world, you'd know that much of Howard's world was made up of large nation states that more resemble medieval kingdoms or classical empires than the scattered clusters of human civilization that has been suggested for 4th edition. Aquilonia, for example, was loosely based on medieval France; and while Aquilonia has wild regions such as the borderlands and Bosonian marches, it encompasses several large fortified cities, and much of the countryside is under the control of powerful nobles and their armies. Aquilonia is surrounded by similiar european-type nations, and conterparts exist in the "mid-eastern" and "asian" parts of Howard's world. Contact and travel between different regions is also very common in the Hyborean world, as seen by the wide range of nationalities that Conan seems to encounter in almost every tale.
JulesCARV 08-30-07, 04:03 PM	In addition to starting their own kingdoms in currently uninhabited (except for monsters who don't count) areas, PCs shouldn't find it as hard as they otherwise might to conquer existing inhabited areas, since large, formidible armies of the existing king or whatever aren't likely to stop them.
caeruleus 08-31-07, 02:13 AM	With little law, this greatly frees the game designers to make games that can ignore where they are. It greatly simplifies the writer's job of writing an interesting module. No one in the future will create some story arc that any writer needs to know. Hire a new writer. Let him write. Hire a new novelest. Let them write. There is no continuity to worry about. One problem with existing campaign settings (such has Eberron) is that to develop for them, you must know them. This little fact weeds out many potential writers from WotC's employ. That sounds reasonable. I tend to think that people who "really like Conan" would prefer a campaign world based on Howard's stories rather than the movies. Damn right! That's because the movies weren't really Conan-movies. They only happened to share some proper names. Like I said, many of Howard's stories take place in remote & uncivilized regions. Nevertheless, if you've read many of Howard's works or even seen a detailed map of the Hyborean world, you'd know that much of Howard's world was made up of large nation states that more resemble medieval kingdoms or classical empires than the scattered clusters of human civilization that has been suggested for 4th edition. Aquilonia, for example, was loosely based on medieval France; and while Aquilonia has wild regions such as the borderlands and Bosonian marches, it encompasses several large fortified cities, and much of the countryside is under the control of powerful nobles and their armies. Aquilonia is surrounded by similiar european-type nations, and conterparts exist in the "mid-eastern" and "asian" parts of Howard's world. Contact and travel between different regions is also very common in the Hyborean world, as seen by the wide range of nationalities that Conan seems to encounter in almost every tale. True. But when I first mentioned Conan, I had in mind stories such as "Red Nails" and "Beyond the Black River". This "Points of Light" business sounds like it could capture the feel of those stories, rather than the whole of the Hyborean Age.
Roxlimn 08-31-07, 03:26 AM	"Points of Light" actually resemble most the Sengoku Jidai in Japanese history - the widespread shattering of political and military unity accompanied by the rise of new powers from relatively small but hard to assault bases. Mythologically, it would make the most sense to set "Points of Light" in such a setting because the power of local Daimyos would be so limited that they'd probably want to hire whatever soldiers happens to get by, and there's no one to patrol the roads between claimed lands. Another possible historical tie-in would be post-Mongol Russian city-states after the collapse of regular Silk Road patrols. Every city state was powerful enough to keep the brigands at bay, and it was still profitable to risk a trip, but the land was not tame.
kelcimer 08-31-07, 04:14 AM	After reading "Points of Light" I was going to start a thread about it and lo and behold there already is one. I found the entire article useless and not confidence inspiring about the game designers. It never struck me that such "assuptions about the setting" were evident in the rules, nor should there be such assuptions. If anything, the rules should be geared so that it will be fine regardless of the social structure the DM wants to have. I have a hard time imagining how trying to gear the rules in such a way as to support such a setting would be a boon to the game. Seems to be a waste of energy to try. And to put out an article like this at a time when many are clamoring for SOME information so that they can have something solid to talk about is kinda pissy.
Sundragon 08-31-07, 06:10 AM	The default setting, auch as it is, is largely irrelevant to most DMs and players because no one is actually going to run their campaign on an undefined, unnamed default setting that isn't even a setting proper but instead more of a conceptual framework of a generic setting. Most either homebrew or buy pre-made settings. In either case, the fact is that the settings themselves determine the political boundaries, the state of given nations, the percentage of civilized lands vs. those in wilderness, the level of technology, how effective the kings/lords/queens/governors/dukes/etc. are in keeping their lands safe of hostile creatures. If they are really assuming that folks are going to rework their settings to reflect the "points of light" thing they are probably mistaken. D&D is a set of rules used to help players and DMs simulate a fantasy world of adventure and magic and is not a setting unto itself. I determine the nature of my game and the setting I am using, not someone who knows nothing of my campaign and the kind of setting I run. Having said that, I think the points of light thing can themetically help new DMs and players to run a game in a pretty dark and scary world. I'm all for darkening D&D up a bit and having a setting where heroes are NEEDED and aren't just a bunch of mercenaries out to kill for gold....ahem....kill for good...yeah that's it. Sundragon
Roxlimn 08-31-07, 06:17 AM	Actually, I rather think that the "Points of Light" scenario is an attempt to thematically justify regular PC activities such as attacking and killing creatures. Such activities can run into problems in civilized areas, and if you go the FRCS route, you have civilized areas which are nonetheless under constant threat of magical armageddon. "Points of Light" allows you to run your "typical" hack'n'slash adventure scenarios with a minimum of fuss and continuity problems.
Clawhound 08-31-07, 12:02 PM	The new mantra is, "Design the game to how the game is actually played." This is part of that theme.
Sundragon 08-31-07, 12:33 PM	The new mantra is, "Design the game to how the game is actually played." This is part of that theme. I'll bite. How does "Points of Light" fit into designing the game as it is played? In some settings this is certainly more true than others. In the groups I have known and the DMs on these boards, they decide, based on the setting they are using, the details of how dark or light, civilized or uncivilized, good or evil their campaign is. I'm not against the "Points of Light" thing, just insterested in opinions of the subject. Sundragon
caeruleus 08-31-07, 01:03 PM	I found the entire article useless and not confidence inspiring about the game designers. It never struck me that such "assuptions about the setting" were evident in the rules, nor should there be such assuptions. I don't think that a set of rules can ever be without assumptions. If you've got wizards, the setting will assume some magic. If wizards don't have access to healing, but clerics do, you're making assumptions about how magic works. With 3.x's reliance on magic items, the assumption was that the setting had enough such items to go around. I expect that the "Points of Light" assumption will have some mechanical effects.
Jexil 08-31-07, 01:28 PM	That sounds reasonable. Damn right! That's because the movies weren't really Conan-movies. They only happened to share some proper names. I though the interpretation of the character was okay, but certainly not many details of the setting made their way into the movie from the stories. True. But when I first mentioned Conan, I had in mind stories such as "Red Nails" and "Beyond the Black River". This "Points of Light" business sounds like it could capture the feel of those stories, rather than the whole of the Hyborean Age.What those stories demonstrate is that you can have plenty of adventures that take place in the savage wilderness even when the larger world is widely civilized. If that's all they wanted for 4th edition, they could just use the Forgotten Realms as the default campaign setting. For all its civilizations, the Realms still has it's share of vast wastelands, mysterious jungles, and dark, wild forests. To me, the whole "points of light" thing sounds like they're not so much conceiving a setting that's defined by the presence of wild regions (every setting has those) but one that's defined by the general lack of civilization. I think the reason for this is so that anything from any adventure or campaign can be added to the landscape seamlessly without having to do a lot of work to figure out it relates to a larger political and social context. For example, just try dropping Castle Ravenloft into the middle of the Hyborean world or the Forgotten Realms. (And my DM actually did put Castle Ravenloft into the Realms, but he had to do some research before picking a location that actually made sense for it.)
Man in the Funny Hat 08-31-07, 02:56 PM	"One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history." - Rich Baker
Holy_Beholder 08-31-07, 07:47 PM	I LOVE this setting, because I love that "Dark Age" Atmosphere, where Fear can be smelled in the Air, where people must struggle with everything they have to reach the next day, and because of that, commoners follow in a somewhat blind way everything that seem to be granting them Salvation of the Soul (and moreover, of the body)... where horrific Human Sacrifices to a Mysterious "Mountain God" or plagued villages are not a rare sight... There was a manga named beet that dealt with this, and although the story was kiddish, it had some good ideas. Basically, there was probably once a modern world, before it was invaded by Vandels(think demons and devils, some seem more like one than the other) The cities are defended by a sort of divine forcefield which keeps out monsters(vandel minions, they mostly suck) above a massive wall guarded by a sentient gate. Then a kid goes around killing them all. The removable part is the field that keeps out monsters and the sentient gate. People(known as busters in beet) would defend these cities, and going on the attack and traveling between them was insanely dangerous. There were mostly people stationed inside a city, only the brave or the stupid went out. They also had to go out to defend the sentient gate, if it is killed both the divine forcefield goes out to allow in flying monsters, and there is a big hole in the wall. So basically, translated into D&D, cities are built on something along the lines of a magical spring, which generated the divine shield. The divine shield is contained in a groove in the wall with runes in it, otherwise it is useless. The wall is really tough, although it is weak if attacked from inside. The cities pay warriors to protect them, however some do it because they want to help people. There are also some people on the side of the monsters, what they call the "winning side". The various classes of demon are all unique, although they use common monsters. The monsters are commissioned by a cult of demons who lack physical power, but know how to make them.
caeruleus 08-31-07, 08:18 PM	What those stories demonstrate is that you can have plenty of adventures that take place in the savage wilderness even when the larger world is widely civilized. If that's all they wanted for 4th edition, they could just use the Forgotten Realms as the default campaign setting. For all its civilizations, the Realms still has it's share of vast wastelands, mysterious jungles, and dark, wild forests. Except that they want to focus on the parts without much civilization, so the rest of the Realms is irrelevant. Besides, this is not a default setting, it's an assumption about a type of setting.
Shedeo 09-01-07, 03:46 AM	"One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history." - Rich Baker Personally, I think that the FRCS could benefit a lot from this type of outlook. I just started play in a much different FRCS, which greatly resembles my homebrew setting, and thus-far its looking better already, and shares relations with this "Points of Light" concept.
aelryinth 09-01-07, 06:29 PM	"One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history." - Rich Baker This is actually kind of funny. One of the big miff points for Eberron is the size of the nations versus the populations. ONce you start comparing them, you realize the vast, vast majority of the 'nations' are nothing more then wilderness the governments are 'claiming', and actually have little to no power over. Hence why they lost Dargunn, Droam, Valenar, the Eldeen Reaches, etc...they were part of the nation in 'name only.' In reality, civilization is concentrated around holdings of nobles who have the muscle to fight off monsters and stuff. The other thing is the default levels of Eberron is 1-3...and they really stick hard to NPC classes. NPC's can't do much of anything, they really DO need heroes with PC levels to deal with most of the crap out there. And the only place you tend to find lots of high level people is in, you guessed it, the 'savage frontier' continent of Xen'drik. ===Aelryinth
kelcimer 09-02-07, 02:49 AM	I don't think that a set of rules can ever be without assumptions. And I don't suggest that. I just suggest against assumptions that don't make a lot of sense when you're creating rules for roleplaying and roll playing and everything in between.
Always-Late 09-02-07, 04:35 AM	But these are assumptions for a default setting and a default game, which usually involve adventurers setting off on various questions, killing baddies, looting, and what-have-you. It's useful to have a default setting, for, say, some casual gamers or pickup games, or people who like playing in existing worlds. The assumptions in this existing world seem to me like the designers are being sure that most types of games can be accommodated, while maintaining internal consistency, which points-of-lights settings tend to have that some others don't.
Optimator 09-04-07, 02:04 PM	In all the games I've been in under my DM it isn't very "Points of Lights"-ish. There are huge swaths of civilization and then huge swaths of dangerous wilderness. Best of both worlds? I dunno, I like having urban sprawl. For some reason it feels more realistic for me, or at leasts helps with suspension of disbelief. YMMV.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-04-07, 04:15 PM	The new mantra is, "Design the game to how the game is actually played." This is part of that theme. I'll have to see this to believe it.