Post/Author/DateTime	Post
18DELTA 04-30-08, 09:08 PM	-Ampersand: Traveling Show by Bill Slavicsek (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080430) You may have noticed that my column is a little late this month. That's because things have been even crazier as we get closer and closer to the launch of D&D 4th Edition. I spent a lot of this past month on the road. It started in early April with a trip to I-CON at Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York. Mike Mearls and I gave a 4E Preview Seminar to a packed hall, ran a bunch of demos, and talked to very enthusiastic fans. We had a wonderful time, met lots of wonderful people, and had a lot of fun showing off the new game system. Then I traveled to Los Angeles with The Rouse and Chris Youngs, to hold a series of press conferences with various media outlets including the gang from G4's MMO Report. We talked all about 4th Edition, including the physical products and the digital offerings, and showed off the latest versions of the D&D Game Table and D&D Character Visualizer. These components are getting closer and closer to completion with each iteration, and I can't wait to start playing for real with the release versions. Soon, soon. Finally, last week I was at the GAMA Trade Show in Las Vegas, showing off the first production copies of the three core rulebooks (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual), H1: Keep on the Shadowfell, and the new D&D Dungeon Master's Screen. I'm happy with the finished products, and everyone who came by and spoke to me seemed enthusiastic and excited as well. This month, I also ordered the D&D Insider team to ramp up the preview content and show off the system. We've been releasing artwork and key sections of the core rulebooks three times a week, and the response continues to be great. We're closing in on D&D 4E Release Day (June 6th) and D&D Game Day (June 7th) -- and I can't wait for the products to hit the stores and for people to start playing! Soon, soon. Campaign Settings I wanted to take a few moments to clarify what I said at GTS last week. In regards to campaign settings, our goal for this edition is to make each setting we release unique and exciting on its own while still making it usable in any D&D campaign. Now, what exactly does that mean? You wouldn't believe how many times over the years I've heard people say "I play in [insert favorite campaign setting here] so product X is of no use to me," or "I only play Core D&D (whatever that means) so I can't use that [insert campaign setting here] product." I plan to change that under 4th Edition by getting the word out that it's okay to mix and match. Go ahead. Get peanut butter in the chocolate. Some of the best campaigns I ever ran or had the pleasure to play in had a little bit of [insert campaign setting here] mixed with a smattering of [insert other campaign setting here] and combined all that with homebrew ideas to create something totally new and different. So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide releasing in August, for example, is a separate and unique setting on one hand, while being totally core D&D on the other. That means you can play a strictly Forgotten Realms campaign, or you can borrow the bits you like best to use in whatever D&D campaign you're playing in. This has always been true, but you wouldn't believe how many players were reluctant to cross the streams like that. I say cross away! (At least as far as your personal campaigns are concerned.) Why not use the best ideas, powers, feats, monsters, villains, and plot hooks from any product -- regardless of the campaign world your game is set in? This means we won't be producing campaign lines, per se. For the Forgotten Realms, for example, you'll get the Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and an adventure as physical products, as well as our ongoing line of bestselling novels, and plenty of ongoing support via D&D Insider. If a product idea comes along later that makes sense, we'll do it, but there won't be an ongoing regular release schedule of Forgotten Realms game products. Why not? Because every D&D product we do is a Forgotten Realms [or insert your favorite campaign setting here] game product. This is a subtle but significant change in philosophy geared toward making all players D&D players. It just makes the products and the brand stronger if every player is using the same material. This is significantly different than what has occurred in the past. We won't be making the mistakes of line proliferation that helped sink TSR, and we won't be actively segmenting our audience. Instead we'll be providing all kinds of options and ideas through the core line of D&D RPG products. It's all D&D, all the time. The model described above will be used every year, and we'll focus on a different campaign setting. Next year, we'll give this treatment to Eberron. After that? Well, we'll be exploring the best worlds from our vault, as well as creating new worlds as warranted. I can't guarantee which worlds will see this treatment as of yet, but chances are that your favorite campaign setting is on my list for consideration. And for all of them, in addition to the physical products we do, you'll see novels and novel lines (as appropriate), and ongoing support that continues to explore the worlds through D&D Insider. This plan makes D&D stronger, without sacrificing the heart of any campaign setting. Next month… H1: Keep on the Shadowfell releases, complete with D&D Quick Start Rules and ready-to-play characters. Everyone will be able to start playing 4E! Keep playing! --Bill Slavicsek About the Author Bill Slavicsek is the R&D Director for Roleplaying Games, Miniatures, and Book Publishing at Wizards of the Coast. All of the game designers, developers, editors, book editors, and D&D Insider content managers working on Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars, and the WotC Publishing Group report into Bill's R&D team. -Well there it is. Italics added -Markus I guess you were right yet again. So I can have Warforged in my Realms now? 18D:eek:
Ody_Saraph_of_Karsus 04-30-08, 09:34 PM	-Ampersand: Traveling Show by Bill Slavicsek (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080430) You may have noticed that my column is a little late this month. That's because things have been even crazier as we get closer and closer to the launch of D&D 4th Edition. I spent a lot of this past month on the road. It started in early April with a trip to I-CON at Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York. Mike Mearls and I gave a 4E Preview Seminar to a packed hall, ran a bunch of demos, and talked to very enthusiastic fans. We had a wonderful time, met lots of wonderful people, and had a lot of fun showing off the new game system. Then I traveled to Los Angeles with The Rouse and Chris Youngs, to hold a series of press conferences with various media outlets including the gang from G4's MMO Report. We talked all about 4th Edition, including the physical products and the digital offerings, and showed off the latest versions of the D&D Game Table and D&D Character Visualizer. These components are getting closer and closer to completion with each iteration, and I can't wait to start playing for real with the release versions. Soon, soon. Finally, last week I was at the GAMA Trade Show in Las Vegas, showing off the first production copies of the three core rulebooks (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual), H1: Keep on the Shadowfell, and the new D&D Dungeon Master's Screen. I'm happy with the finished products, and everyone who came by and spoke to me seemed enthusiastic and excited as well. This month, I also ordered the D&D Insider team to ramp up the preview content and show off the system. We've been releasing artwork and key sections of the core rulebooks three times a week, and the response continues to be great. We're closing in on D&D 4E Release Day (June 6th) and D&D Game Day (June 7th) -- and I can't wait for the products to hit the stores and for people to start playing! Soon, soon. Campaign Settings I wanted to take a few moments to clarify what I said at GTS last week. In regards to campaign settings, our goal for this edition is to make each setting we release unique and exciting on its own while still making it usable in any D&D campaign. Now, what exactly does that mean? You wouldn't believe how many times over the years I've heard people say "I play in [insert favorite campaign setting here] so product X is of no use to me," or "I only play Core D&D (whatever that means) so I can't use that [insert campaign setting here] product." I plan to change that under 4th Edition by getting the word out that it's okay to mix and match. Go ahead. Get peanut butter in the chocolate. Some of the best campaigns I ever ran or had the pleasure to play in had a little bit of [insert campaign setting here] mixed with a smattering of [insert other campaign setting here] and combined all that with homebrew ideas to create something totally new and different. So under 4th Edition, we're making every product look like a core product. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide releasing in August, for example, is a separate and unique setting on one hand, while being totally core D&D on the other. That means you can play a strictly Forgotten Realms campaign, or you can borrow the bits you like best to use in whatever D&D campaign you're playing in. This has always been true, but you wouldn't believe how many players were reluctant to cross the streams like that. I say cross away! (At least as far as your personal campaigns are concerned.) Why not use the best ideas, powers, feats, monsters, villains, and plot hooks from any product -- regardless of the campaign world your game is set in? This means we won't be producing campaign lines, per se. For the Forgotten Realms, for example, you'll get the Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and an adventure as physical products, as well as our ongoing line of bestselling novels, and plenty of ongoing support via D&D Insider. If a product idea comes along later that makes sense, we'll do it, but there won't be an ongoing regular release schedule of Forgotten Realms game products. Why not? Because every D&D product we do is a Forgotten Realms [or insert your favorite campaign setting here] game product. This is a subtle but significant change in philosophy geared toward making all players D&D players. It just makes the products and the brand stronger if every player is using the same material. This is significantly different than what has occurred in the past. We won't be making the mistakes of line proliferation that helped sink TSR, and we won't be actively segmenting our audience. Instead we'll be providing all kinds of options and ideas through the core line of D&D RPG products. It's all D&D, all the time. The model described above will be used every year, and we'll focus on a different campaign setting. Next year, we'll give this treatment to Eberron. After that? Well, we'll be exploring the best worlds from our vault, as well as creating new worlds as warranted. I can't guarantee which worlds will see this treatment as of yet, but chances are that your favorite campaign setting is on my list for consideration. And for all of them, in addition to the physical products we do, you'll see novels and novel lines (as appropriate), and ongoing support that continues to explore the worlds through D&D Insider. This plan makes D&D stronger, without sacrificing the heart of any campaign setting. Next month… H1: Keep on the Shadowfell releases, complete with D&D Quick Start Rules and ready-to-play characters. Everyone will be able to start playing 4E! Keep playing! --Bill Slavicsek About the Author Bill Slavicsek is the R&D Director for Roleplaying Games, Miniatures, and Book Publishing at Wizards of the Coast. All of the game designers, developers, editors, book editors, and D&D Insider content managers working on Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars, and the WotC Publishing Group report into Bill's R&D team. -Well there it is. Italics added -Markus I guess you were right yet again. So I can have Warforged in my Realms now? 18D:eek: You just like to add fuel to the fire don't you? :nonono:
18DELTA 04-30-08, 09:43 PM	You just like to add fuel to the fire don't you? :nonono: -What little ol me? :smirk: I guess thats why they had to nuke the Realms. They had to remove everything that made the setting unique and special. :mad: 18D:(
Lykor 04-30-08, 09:58 PM	Some of this is probably due to the conversion of all of the existing settings to use the 4e fluff. So no longer to you have setting specific monsters (warforged vs star elves vs whatever is in Dark Sun, etc), every setting now has the same monsters. Same with spells, gods, what have you. And since the overall flavor of each world is the same (PoL), you can simply drop something in, maybe chagne a few names, and BOOM! Instant conversion. With previous editions, you could only pick and choose between books, classes, races, etc, as they were all unique. Not anymore, which is probably the greatest loss with 4e.
MerrikCale 04-30-08, 10:41 PM	can I stop playing D&D now?
Lord Karsus 05-01-08, 12:11 AM	-Hey, who cares what someone does in their own campaign, right? If they want to mix, then let 'em.
Stigger 05-01-08, 02:37 AM	I agree with the idea that you should use any idea that's good, and to be honest, I find it bizarre that someone wouldn't use stuff from core and Eberron in the Realms if they wished to. I can get behind the sentiment completely and utterly... the execution however leaves a whole lot to be desired.
Lord Toast 05-01-08, 07:26 AM	-Hey, who cares what someone does in their own campaign, right? If they want to mix, then let 'em. I agree with you there is nothing wrong with it at all, the varies gaming groups I belonged to or participated in has been doing this sort of thing for over two decades. The dm or player enjoyed a particular article in Dragon then it was mixed into the game, the same goes for any adventure used in Dungeon magazine. “This adventure is for the Birthright setting” in an opening blurb for a dungeon scenario meant nothing at all; it was a suggestion and could be ignored. If we wanted to use horror rules (unique at the time to Ravenloft setting) we moved it over and still maintained the flavor of the campaign. I’m baffled by players who say ,”I play in Forgotten Realms and can’t use this book because it lacks the FR logo.” Get with the DM and think of an in game reason to use a rule/monster/class/etc…and then incorporate the thing into your game. Its your game. Own it.
Lord Toast 05-01-08, 07:39 AM	can I stop playing D&D now? The option to play or not is up to you. It's your choice, no one is going to make it for you. Please leave your character sheets at the door and donate your game books to the local women’s shelter (the children would appreciate a new hobby) or send them to the troops serving over seas in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Rauric 05-01-08, 09:20 AM	I said before I think people who saw a EB design or FR design on the cover of a book would not even touch it if they never palyed or like those settings. A book that looks like the design of the core books might be picked up and looked through. That gives the gamer a chance to check out what is inside. This seems odd I know because I pick up any book I see and read through it but I know people hate or fear setting books and would never crack one open ever unless they were properly convinced to by another gamer. Consumers are odd and gameing cunsumers are odder I guess.
MerrikCale 05-01-08, 11:08 AM	The option to play or not is up to you. It's your choice, no one is going to make it for you. Please leave your character sheets at the door and donate your game books to the local women’s shelter (the children would appreciate a new hobby) or send them to the troops serving over seas in Afghanistan or Iraq. or sell'em on ebay
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 11:31 AM	-Markus I guess you were right yet again. So I can have Warforged in my Realms now?I'm almost always right.... except when I'm wrong. :P People say things a certain way when they use language, and the English language is very rich. If you look beyond what someone is saying, and ask yourself WHY they phrased it that Certain way (or left something out), then you figure out what is really going on. Besides - "There will be no 'core world" "Everything in Core will be in FR" And NO logo come August... Not to mention the last few FR books came out as Core - Undermountain, DotU (Originally an FR book), the Draconimicon, etc... It really didn't take a brain surgeon to see through their little scam. ;)
Rauric 05-01-08, 12:03 PM	FR pretty much has been the Core setting since 2E. It was the most popular at one point and was heavily supported (too much so) in 2E and was well supported in 3E as well. My thoughts on this article are posted above and I think that is what they are going for, not making a core setting but making all of its books useable to all consumers. This has always been so but the lack of a setting "exterior" makes this looks more apparent to more consumers.
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 12:28 PM	If they do the same thing with Eberron, then I am all for it. I have all the Eberron books that came out, as well as tons of books from other 3e settings. I also bought into all the settings from 2e (and earlier), because I loved to 'mix and match' things, just as they have said. So the game itself is moving more toward my own playing style, which is a good thing (for me). When I used to use all my old GH modules in FR, it created a little bit of a stink with players, once they realized what I was doing (that was some fifteen years ago). I thought it was stupid not to use everything I possibly could to create a fun adventure, but some people just don't get that. The world you 'game in' is never the same as the one from the sourcebooks. Buuuut... I'm just waiting to see if they stick to this when Eberron rolls around. I realize that book shown at that con was just a 'mock-up', so hopefully they will publishing Eberron material with no logo as well. If they do, then everything Bill Slaviscek said here will be pure BS. Only time will tell....
MerrikCale 05-01-08, 12:45 PM	It was the most popular at one point still is
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 05-01-08, 01:39 PM	To answer the topic question, no--the FR setting is NOT "the core setting" for 4E D&D. The designers have confirmed that. However, it is apparent that WotC is trying to "homogenize" all the settings as much as possible. For what it's worth, I never thought Greyhawk was truly the core setting of 3E. Sure, the 3E "core setting" used some (tweaked) gods from that setting, but as far as I could tell, that was about it--the books seemed to go out of their way not to mention Greyhawk. So, in my not-so humble opinion, D&D hasn't used one of it's established settings as a "core setting" in a long time--the core setting isn't a setting at all, so much as a collection of ideas the designers think should be associated with D&D.
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 02:04 PM	And therein lies the rub. EVERY other game system (except, perhaps, for GURPs) has a world it is built around. IN D&D, the worlds are instead wrapped around the rules, which is a bad thing, IMHO. FR evolved without a ruleset, and then was adapted to D&D, TWICE - once by Ed, and later by TSR. Thats why it is so different then other D&D worlds. It was a story, and THEN it was a setting. Now, settings are being retro-fitted into the ruleset. The difference between that approach, and the ones used by most other companies, is that all the settings start to look alike (I like Rinon's use of the word 'homogenized'). How will any official WotC setting stand out from any other? Even the other D20 worlds had the rules altered to fit them - Iron Kingdoms, Ptolus, Warcraft, Pathfinder (or whatever Paizo's planet is called). A world becomes interesting when it has rules particular to it - "One rules to rule them all" is GREAT in theory, but I'm not sure it will be successful as a way to immerse people in the game. I think WotC should have stuck with ONE world, and designed a game around it... or two (Eberron). Each with its own Players Guide and DMG. I think one would have been better, but I can't see them forgetting about Eberron now, and I certainly don't want them to drop the Realms for it. A setting a year means we will start seeing things like Ravenloft Orcs, Spelljammer Orcs, maybe even Dragonlance Orcs... in the MM's, and we will be right back to the beginning off all the past problems, with an incredible amount of redundancy. I think if they took just ONE setting, and ran with it, they could create something awesome... but this 'spreading out' will cause a lot non-creative ideas to get repeated. Multiple settings for 4e D20 I am all for - I loved the universal feel of 3e D20 when it was introduced. However, I feel a company can't produce an excellent world if it has to spread its ideas out amongst several different lines. When a company starts to spread itself thin (as I believe White Wolf and TSR did), the material suffers for it.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 05-01-08, 02:20 PM	I think if they took just ONE setting, and ran with it, they could create something awesome... but this 'spreading out' will cause a lot non-creative ideas to get repeated. I would have loved it if they DID make a true "core setting" (complete with a map) out of the ideas presented in the preview books. I'm disgusted at how the Realms is being twisted around to fit the new rules and concepts, but (as I've said a zillion times before), I think the rules themselves would be great in setting made just for them.:)
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 02:30 PM	I think they could have created an amazing setting around the new rules. Perhaps they should have just left both Eberron and Forgotten Realms in 3e? Then again, I think the fans would have complained just as loudly about that. Ah, well...
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 05-01-08, 02:35 PM	I think they could have created an amazing setting around the new rules. Perhaps they should have just left both Eberron and Forgotten Realms in 3e? Then again, I think the fans would have complained just as loudly about that. Maybe, but more significantly, if WotC is going to put 3E out to pasture, it makes no sense to continue to use outdated rules for their most popular settings.
Alediran 05-01-08, 02:39 PM	I'm completely baffled with this (not that I never expected it). WW had a lot more sense when they ended oWoD and made nWoD. They managed to kept the feeling of each game intact in the nWoD but with alternative "settings" (since 99% is based on the Real World but with a spin that's smoothly done) and unified rules that could be bend around the fluff of each game. You have core rules like the table with max energy/energy per turn, two things that defined your character: Clan/Path/Auspice and Covenant/Order/Tribe, the first being permanent and the seccond not. After that, each game had lots of special rules made around the core rules (so you could play a crossover and play it well with the alternative rules of each game), Mages of certain path had strong affinity with two spheres and where very weak with one. Vampires had clan/bloodline weaknesses. And those were the rules that made each game unique while still being perfectly compatible.
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 02:58 PM	Well, maybe thats what they are shooting for - to be more like WW in their world/setting creation; lots of cross-comaptibility. But then again, I thought that was what open-source D20 was all about. :bored: I would have loved if they came out with a core world, all its own, and then maybe did a 'world book' for each setting, one per year, with perhaps FR being third (after Eberron). They could have updated the setting with a FAT book (other settings do that), adapting it to the new rules, and wouldn't have rocked the boat as much. I'd love to know what was at the very basis of the decision to turn FR into the new 4e world. There doesn't really seem to be any logical reason for it, other then 'brand recognition', which has become negative at this point (having quite the opposite effect of what they wanted). They could have kept the Realms the novel setting, and created a whole new world (that people would have probably loved) for the gamers. As of right now, I think they might have tanked their lucrative novel line with this mess. Some really bad decisions being made somewhere at the top... :(
Alediran 05-01-08, 03:02 PM	The problem MT is that WotC made the setting the equivalent of the supernaturals in WoD. There is a huge difference between Eberron and Forgotten Realms than Mage and Vampire. The former are completely different worlds without relation, the later happen in the SAME setting. It would be akin to making FR the setting and making a game of Elves and a game of Dwarves. It's easier to make a crossover between elves and dwarves that works right than making a crossover between two very diferent and unrelated settings.
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 03:19 PM	True, but I still feel that may be one of the things they were shooting for. I'm only passingly familiar with WW stuff, but I'm sure people borrowed heavily from the 'other settings', even if they just concentrated on one. I personally tried to bring the 'Vampire vs Lycanthropes' into FR, but it just doesn't work (at least not very well). In my own setting, I'll have that going on, in the background, with both being 'secret ancient organizations'. Still, if it doesn't work (again), I can always toss it out. I'm considering making my world based loosely on TSR's Masque of the Red Death, and its sequel, Gothic Earth. I don't know if a lot of people like the idea of gaming in an Earth from an alternate reality/timeline. Isn't that what all the the WoD is? Based on the RW? :confused:
MerrikCale 05-01-08, 03:53 PM	I personally tried to bring the 'Vampire vs Lycanthropes' into FR, but it just doesn't work (at least not very well). In my own setting, I'll have that going on, in the background, with both being 'secret ancient organizations'. You could have a rival were thieves guild to the Night Masks. Maybe from a nearby city
MarkusTay63 05-01-08, 06:13 PM	Sure, on a local level - thats how I tried fitting it in. But it can't really be done as 'world-encompassing' as it as in the WoD stuff. It really is too strong a story-line to just have as a small part of a setting - it only comes into its own when a world is built around it. However, I still use that Vampires and Werewolves will usually attack each other on site - I don't really need all the background for that. They see each other as natural competitors for 'human chattel', and like any territorial creatures, they will fight one another. Also, being immune to each others curse makes them a little 'piqued'. I toyed with the idea of having a special NPC, that was both - he would have been bitten by a Werewolf, and THEN by a Vampire before the next full moon. That means he hadn't gone into 'Wolf-form' yet - he would of at the next full moon. The timing, of course would have to be perfect, and he would have to have been Vampire-bitten the night before the Full Moon, so the next night, both curses would kick-in for the first time simultaneously. I like the combo-creature from the Underworld movie, and was trying to figure out how to accomplish that in D&D, and thats the best I could come up with (although I never used it - it was just a mental exercise).
Stigger 05-02-08, 01:33 AM	Underworld was pretty much a rip off of the WoD series... and more specifically a Nancy A. Collins short story. And WoD did allow for vampiric werewolves... they just had to catastrophically fail a roll to become one, which wasn't too likely, and were called Abominations. Although by WoD terms, I'd call half-and-half boy from UW a revenant ghoul (ghouls are kinda complicated... a creature that drinks vampiric blood for the power, who gets bonded to the 'donor' eventually is a pretty short way of putting it) garou (game term for werewolf). Incredibly unlikely, but not impossible.
Straploknight 05-05-08, 12:32 AM	Homogenized settings... man these guys need no farther than to take a look at General Motors to see what "brand" homogenization did for them. Engineer one plateform and change the wrapper :(
jimmyjimjam01 05-07-08, 12:49 AM	can I stop playing D&D now? Yes, and Ill join you.
MerrikCale 05-12-08, 12:07 AM	Underworld was pretty much a rip off of the WoD series... ya think? :rolleyes:
Stigger 05-12-08, 10:00 AM	Nah... but the number of parallels and overall similarity between them was simply amazing. :D