Based on this Design & Development article, it looks like 4E is not only messing with the conception of demons, devils, and the Outer Planes, but also throwing a strange version of Tharizdun into the mix, a version that's seemingly "generic" and not tied to Greyhawk, since we already knew that even the bastardized Greyhawk that existed in 3E will not carry over to the new edition.
Not sure what to say except this makes me even less inclined to buy 4E than I already was and that's saying something.
Little has changed....they game demons and devils origin stories, which in itself is fine (except the Tharizdun part). You want souls to corrupt, use devils, you want chaos and mayhem, use demons, isn't that what we started with in 1st edition?
More frosting, no cake....
Employing Greyhawk deities into core 4th edition is in my opinion the wrong thing to do. So we have Obad-Hai (I think Vecna), and now Tharizdun running around with a promoted Asmodeus (another mistake), along with Thor, Zeus, and who knows else who. Yep, good solid pantheon, lets take from real world religions (different ones) mix them with fictional religions, and use that.
Athena, Heironeous, and Loki must really be pleased! _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Employing Greyhawk deities into core 4th edition is in my opinion the wrong thing to do. So we have Obad-Hai (I think Vecna), and now Tharizdun running around with a promoted Asmodeus (another mistake), along with Thor, Zeus, and who knows else who. Yep, good solid pantheon, lets take from real world religions (different ones) mix them with fictional religions, and use that.
Very much agreed. As much as I hated the frequent misuse of Greyhawk lore in 3E, there was at least enough thematic consistency that it felt coherent. Now, with this picking and choosing of deities and other elements from various sources, it feels slapdash and even amateurish.
I'm trying very hard not to lapse into my curmudgeonly old man persona, but every time I see stuff like this, it takes a lot of mental strength to contain myself. It's as if no one at WotC R&D either knows or cares about the 30+ years of history attached to some of these names and concepts. To them, they're just convenient monikers they can swipe for their own creations, the past be damned.
When 4.0 hits the shelves, your copies of the 1983 boxed set will not burst into flame and be destroyed. And given that, I must assume that Greyhawk must be safe.
I'm still on the fence on whether or not to jump on the 4.0 bandwagon, but if I do I see no reason why I can't use it for proper Greyhawk stuff.
I'm still on the fence on whether or not to jump on the 4.0 bandwagon, but if I do I see no reason why I can't use it for proper Greyhawk stuff.
A lot depends on how much the 4E rules changes have unexpected setting implications. If, for example, magic is changed is significant ways, I can easily seeing it do violence to the way Greyhawk has been described through three editions. At this stage, we don't know for certain, but my feeling, based on what we've seen so far, is that, while it might be possible to run a Greyhawk game using the 4E rules, those rules will bring baggage with them that will necessitate either a) changing the rules to bring them into line with Greyhawk or b) changing Greyhawk to bring them into line with the rules. Neither prospect strikes me as worth the effort.
We should take a poll on how many Greyhawkers plan on going with 4th edition at this point in time then try it again once 4th edition has been on the shelves for about 6 months. It would be interesting to see the differance. In addtion we could then start up forums discussing how to make 4th edition more compatible with greyhawk in regards to rule and fluff changes. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
We should take a poll on how many Greyhawkers plan on going with 4th edition at this point in time then try it again once 4th edition has been on the shelves for about 6 months. It would be interesting to see the differance. In addtion we could then start up forums discussing how to make 4th edition more compatible with greyhawk in regards to rule and fluff changes.
At present, I have no interest in upgrading to 4E. I'll stick with my house-ruled v.3.5 for Greyhawk and any other settings I run. While the current edition is far from perfect, it possesses enough continuity with previous editions, coupled with plenty of options, that I can run a Greyhawk campaign without the need for extensive changes. It may be that 4E will in fact be similar in this regard, but, so far, I see little evidence of that. The Design & Developments articles posted to date have stressed the discontinuity with past editions rather than continuity and I think, for a variety of reasons, that this will be the watchword for 4E -- or Dungeons & Dragons 2.0, as I like to call it.
How do we start a poll on Canonfire? Who do we leave a message with or does the staff pick it up when they read the forum...I'm to new to the site to know for certain how these things work. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I'm still definitly on for Greyhawk in 4e. I think - especially the points of light theorum really fits my style and feel of GH. It my campaign, much of GH has fallen into discord, having been initiated by the Race War (elves and dwarves pissed about all the humans sucking up 'their' land). Basically, all the bad guys are having really good days at the same time.
But, I understand that things will be different, and that's a big change to make. I've described it this way before . . . it's like reading a different series of books. Like going from Terry Brooks' Shannara series, with it's elves, dwarves, and vicious gnomes to Raymond Feists' Riftwar books. The different races are still there, and it still feels like you are reading a D&D campaign, but the backgrounds are very different.
That said, when 4e hits, I will probably not continue my current story arc in the new edition. GH will start over, so to speak, with all of the 'fluff' changes.
ymmv
Edited for crappy spelling. . . _________________ Michael Erin Sandar Bard of Midwood
Count me in for that poll and "converting" 4E to work with Greyhawk.
In all honesty, I don't see the fuss. Even if you use Greyhawk, there are certain modifications you have to make to the 3.5 rules and fluff to make them work for any sigle part of Greyhawk. Take warmages as an example. I use them in my current Keoland game. They are trained in Niole Dra along side other noble military types, and have station the same as any knight. I've also done the same with wizards, since it makes sense as far as I can see with everything written for Keoland. Its not a war-college of wizardly type folks like the class description. I changed the fluff to match my campaign.
I have never seen a campaign where I have not had to do that. My best friend runs a home brew world, where elves are laden with draconic blood and have sorcerer as favored class, and have more in common theme-wise with the Eldar of Tolkien than the Olve of Greyhawk or the Sun/Moon/etc elves of Forgotten Realms. No book is ever going to make everyone happy. Don't like the names they've chosen for their wizarding styles - change or ignore them all together. That is part of DMing. They have already said they are going for setting neutral in the core books, and I for one don't see that as bad. Even the generic Greyhawk mentality was very hard to get over when I first started playing Ebberon. As someone who plays in multiple settings, I don't see why a generic setting lite rules system is a bad thing. Sure add in some fluff, if nothing else but to show me how you present the classes in setting. But no fluff should ever be so tied to system that I cannot get rid of it when it suits me.
Of course I have a good head for mechanics, so I will likely be porting forward anything that was left behind that I want to use (say Demons and Devils?). I will be upgrading, to 4E, that much is certain, but I would hardly turn down a 3.5 game if a friend decided to run one. But I have never had an issue adapting. If nothing else the new cosmology will make it easier for me to integrate my Paladium Fantasy campaign into a slightly less clunky rules system. (I have been referred to as the Mikey of gaming before, simply because I love trying out new things.)
I dunno, I ramble a lot and generally can run with anything I'm given if I have half a clue. Who knows, we may LOVE the new setting, once its released completely. You can't know until such time as it is in front of you done. I'll quit for now, since I am fairly certain I've repeated myself at least 4 times this post, and don't feel like going back to edit
I despise this apparent use of Tharizdun. People thought 3X stripmined GH? Seems like 4e will be the real deal. This is beyond bad. _________________ GVD
What bothers me most about these changes, aside from their seeming arbitrariness (I say "seeming" because I am very certain they aren't and were in fact with a clear plan in mind), is that it's another nail in the coffin of the common vocabulary that D&D players have had for over 30 years, regardless of edition. The edition wars of the past were fought by combatants who were at least all speaking the Common Tongue. With the advent of 4E, we'll add a new faction to the mix and they'll be effectively speaking a different language, now that "devil" and "demon" don't mean what they used to.
What bothers me most about these changes, aside from their seeming arbitrariness (I say "seeming" because I am very certain they aren't and were in fact with a clear plan in mind), is that it's another nail in the coffin of the common vocabulary that D&D players have had for over 30 years, regardless of edition. The edition wars of the past were fought by combatants who were at least all speaking the Common Tongue. With the advent of 4E, we'll add a new faction to the mix and they'll be effectively speaking a different language, now that "devil" and "demon" don't mean what they used to.
This saddens me.
This is a really, really good point! _________________ GVD
Yeah, I can rewrite fluff with the best of them. Do a lot of it. I just don't like the mindset behind the development staff here. They apparently think that DMs are morons who can't figure this stuff out without their help. We need some "scientific" encounter design system, which will be completely useless because its based on arbitrary standards of character power... which will vary from campaign to campaign based on group composition and DM generosity.
We can't figure out how demons and devils work differently, we can't find a use for the elemental planes in adventuring... Oh, and my favorite: DMs get confused when a monster has too many powers, so all those special powers demons have are "superfluous". Well, I suppose so.. if all they are are things to kill. What was the quote from the monster manual design article? Something like "monsters only last 5 rounds, so they really only need 5 cool things to do.." Yeah, right.. No one ever uses a monster except as a combat..
I just don't get this whole mindset. And why make so many non mechanics changes.. Elves are entirely different from *any* existing D&D version. Demons and devils are now, too. Gnomes are apparently gone (?). Tieflings and warlocks common enough to be 'core' player options.
GH used to be the world that matched the rules as written and the FR and Ebberon needed pages and pages of house rules and exceptions. That's definitely NOT the case now. Now any Greyhawk Campaign Setting is going to need a strong 'house rules' section of its own. Or be radically altered.
None of this will affect my campaign, of course. I might use 4e if its mechanically superior and I'll write my own fluff to replace theirs. I just don't understand the mindset of their developers in this.
It's our (WOTC) game, we can do what we want. We want to make a new game but retain the title Dungeons and Dragons in order to market it. The younger audience will do as we tell them. The older audience are nothing more than relics of days gone by.
That's the mindset. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
<SNIP>
I just don't like the mindset behind the development staff here. They apparently think that DMs are morons who can't figure this stuff out without their help. We need some "scientific" encounter design system, which will be completely useless because its based on arbitrary standards of character power... which will vary from campaign to campaign based on group composition and DM generosity.
<SNIP>
Vormaerin,
It not that they think DMs are morons, they don't. Its that the current rule set , 3e, requires a lot of prep time to run. It puts a huge load on the DM. For those of us that have been playing/DMing since late 70s/early 80s, this seems weird and condescending.
However, as someone who played, judged and organized 3e games on a bi-weekly basis for 5+ years in the RPGA. I can tell you that it was hard to recruit new judges. There is a wall of knowledge that can and does intimidate new judges. I remember having to hand hold 4 of my new judges for a convention I ran. And that was really the most I could handle at a time. Fortunately, I had a good crew of experienced DMs that could take care of themselves while I encouraged the next gen of judges. Of the 4 that I helped out, half kept at it.
So, if the changes to the game reduce my prep time, lessen barriers to entry for new judges, and wax my car on the weekends, I will be happy. I don't see it as a slight on my abilities. I see it as freeing up my time to work on more important things in my campaign like background fluff...
My Two Coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Old School/New School Gamer... can't we all just get along...
That is covered by simplifying *the rules*. Not by dumbing down the "fluff."
If monsters are dumbed down to "five cool things" that's means every DM who wants to do more than have a five round combat needs to make it up from scratch. Harder, not easier. Why can't they say "This is what the monster typically does in a combat encounter. This is the sort of thing a monster might do in a non combat encounter? Oh right, there are no non combat encounters....
Yeah, some of the elemental planes are pointless for adventuring. They exist to explain elements of the cosmos. But I guess that's too hard to understand. Some folks can't grasp that Slaadi aren't funny demons, so lets make them demons. Oh, and get rid of Limbo anyway it seems.
DMs are going to do with this 'encounter design system' exactly what they did with 3e CRs: pretty much ignore them after the first dozen or so encounters don't work because their party is a ranger, a bard, two rogues, and a warlock or something else that doesn't meet the FOUR OFFICIAL ROLES (tm). Or loot varies. Or character builds are "optimized" or very not optimized. Or any of the innumerable things that distinquish one campaign from the next.
Getting refs who could run games was hard when I was doing tournaments 20 years ago with 1 and 2e rules. The current rules and, perhaps, lower overall participation doubtless makes it harder. But I'd have to wander from room to room helping adjudicate things for about half the DMs of any given opening round. Subsequent rounds usually were small enough to stick to the folks with more experience.
Advice on how to do things, suggestions, etc. That's all good. Trying to create formulae to be followed, the "Five cool things this monster does," and jettisoning anything that suggests there's more kinds of adventures than dungeon crawls on the fringe of civilization's points of light is not a formula for developing new, competent DMs. Its a method for pigeon holing gaming into hack and slash.
That crap about Asmodeus as Lucifer renamed and even demon lords being brute force entities is going to help gaming? DMs learn how to DM from examples and from the seat of their pants. The examples in the early 80s were dungeon crawls with a heavy mix to background intrigue: Innumerable factions in and around the ToEE. Lots of background and intrigue around the dungeon crawls in Slavers, Giants, and Drow. Even the Keep on the Borderland talked about wider issues than just the dungeon and had lots of non combat options in the "dungeon crawl". Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was set up as a multinational 'race to the loot" almost.
Now it seems like they just want to set up their little combat adventures designed for minis and screw the background. "Umm, its a small town somewhere where no one important is or cares about."
Even if most folks build their own campaign world.. which is generally what I've done in my career... they look at examples from published stuff. Especially when they are first learning. And the mindset these designers are showing really doesn't inspire much hope in my mind that they'll produce gamers who are trying to do more than replicate a computer game at the tabletop.
Like Saracenus, I've been finding that most of the stuff I don't like about 4.0 is fluff related, and what I do like the sound of is crunch related.
And that being said, I think that fluff errors should be easier to fix than crunch errors. And since I'm looking to make the leap from Player to DM at some point, anything that drops prep time is a-okay by me.
That is covered by simplifying *the rules*. Not by dumbing down the "fluff."
If monsters are dumbed down to "five cool things" that's means every DM who wants to do more than have a five round combat needs to make it up from scratch. Harder, not easier. Why can't they say "This is what the monster typically does in a combat encounter. This is the sort of thing a monster might do in a non combat encounter? Oh right, there are no non combat encounters....
<SNIP>
Vormaerin,
Lets get something straight right away. There will be no simplifying of the D&D rules. Anyone that tells you that 4e is going to be "simpler" is drinking the GenCon koolaide. Its not going to be a stripped down rule set.
The intent is to streamline the rules so that whatever you want to do, you can do it quicker. So, the "dumbed down" 5 things a monster can do is a part of this mantra. But its not just striping down a monster, its making the monsters coherent and usable.
I agree with him the Ogre Mage suffers from a lack of focus. This monster is the problem with 3e monster design writ large. While its great that the Ogre Mage can cast sleep its fluff that doesn't help it do its job and makes the listing for the creature more "complex" and larger... not in a good way.
So, where you see dumb, I see clarity of purpose. Where you see condensation, I see them delivering me from confusion.
Simplification, clarification particularly, and streamlining to avoid rules barriers and huge prep time are all fine but I sense 4e goes much farther than it needs to in order to accomplish these goals. Nothing better exemplifies this than the "roles" into which all PCs and monsters are being forced. If you like or agree with the roles, that's great but if you do not you will have to fight the rules to do more than fulfill your or a monster's "role."
On the fluff side, we see a similar "channeling" taking place in support of the crunchy side "roles." Demons are mindless engines or destruction while devils are the clever ones. That is clearer, and simplier but much more confining to a DM, particularly a Greyhawk DM. Grazzt is a mindless engine of destruction? No. Just the opposite. And he is not lawful evil, at the same time. Clever chaotic lower planar types apparently won't exist in 4e. This is simplier but much more confining, to say nothing of messing with Greyhawk canon.
I get what Wotc wants to accomplish but they are going about it with a blunt instrument when a scapel would have been sufficient.
Guess it just depends on what you think a monster's job is. If its only real purpose is to be a temporary storage container for gore the PCs get to spread around after a few rounds, then the new design philosophy is spot on.
If you want to be able to use creatures outside of that box, then its nice that they already come with "superfluous" abilities that suit such alternative uses. About the only thing I agreed with about that article was that its CR was wrong. But then I think CRs are almost totally worthless already.
Comparing by how long a fighter takes to beat down a troll? Don't need another humanoid because we can just use orcs for everything? If the party of lvl 6 types can't counter invis in some way, the ogre mage will be annoying and might not turn into a gore pinata in the specified time frame so we better nerf the creature?
Just because the powers that be say that a monster has to be used in a certain way doesn't mean that we have to use it that way. Last I heard we have free will.
So demons apparently have no concept of long range planning? Pffft! To the bin with that. (I always saw demon plans as being a series of short term goals and inspired improvisation anyway)
So far with 4.0, I think the rules are going to be pretty good, but the fluff will be less than to out tastes.
Now if only Wizards could show use some of the new rules.
Wait a minute, if he is imprisoned and nobody has let him out, then how in the world did he get a new job description with WOTC.
If WOTC let him out then they really need to have their alignment checked. Maybe it's time for an atonement spell. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Well, as Rasgon pointed out in another thread, the fact that we can, do and will continue to change things as we see fit is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. After all, every discussion is ended by that point if you accept it as valid for the discussion. I don't use the cosmology as written now and I tend to make up my own monsters, adventures, etc. So in that sense, none of this is relevant to me.
But I still think the approach they are taking with this design is fundamentally flawed.. or, at least, at odds with the more expansive view I recall from "the olden days". And I particularly don't like how they are changing the baseline of discussion such that 4e folks aren't going to be talking the same language as 1-3e folks
Things might turn out better than what the previews offer. It remains to be seen if 4e = Dee dee dee. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
When 4.0 hits the shelves, your copies of the 1983 boxed set will not burst into flame and be destroyed. And given that, I must assume that Greyhawk must be safe.
I'm still on the fence on whether or not to jump on the 4.0 bandwagon, but if I do I see no reason why I can't use it for proper Greyhawk stuff.
WotC is not offering a 3.5E conversion tool. So all your 3.5E material will have to be updated by you, to 4thE. If you have the time or create your own material then it isn't a biggie to changing over to 4thE, but remember that it is like changing from 2ndE to 3.0E. Very different.
For example, if a dragon is a major villain in your story plot and you carry him over to 4th but keep the rest 3.5, things are going to get nasty around your gaming table when your hard earned PCs die in the first encounter! Because the new edition isn't holding any punches! Be prepared to buy everything new!
I know I am very late on this post but I think the main thing is not really discussed here... In one way or another, we all have our House Rules, regardless of which edition we are playing with.
The future of GreyHawk does notdepend on the set of rules but rather on the campagn setting manual published with each (new) set of rules.
GreyHawk has a long history through many modules and campaign setting.
WotC publishes a 4th edition ? Well that is not really important. What is important is in publishing a campaign setting with the new set, it also describes the course of on going eventssince the last set of rules and also allow to expand forward the timeline. Since GreyHawk is based on lands, kingdoms and history (IMO) rather than on important figures (like the Forgotten Realms), a new edition is a good or bad thing in itslef. What is bad is to not support the historical campaign setting and dump it to the oubliette.
I think it is always written in the DM's guide that "if you do not like one or more rules, just drop them." or something like that.
So, we do not like the 4th edition rules (I do REALLY not), well forget it but make me a decent setting so I can play with an "official" timeline (and my old editions' rules and House Rules).
Thanks. _________________ What does not kill us, makes us stronger. Friedrich Nietzsche
In 4th edition Tharizdun is imprisioned and has been for a long time.
Only the gods know where he is and he sends messages to his followers to gain power and escape.
This seems like the original concept of Tharizdun to me.
Gary Gygax wrote in Artifact of Evil page 47, 'Aeons ago, he was trapped by those deities who understood that this greatest Evil must be fettered or all Goodness would perish from this world and possibly the entire multiverse.'
As for Demons and Devils, each intelligent creature group will have strong, charismatic or intelligent members. Also the Demons and Devils speel in the core books is a guide. Maybe the particular fiends dealing with Oerth over the centuries have picked up a few tricks from their mortal minions.
There is nothing to stop you having the Bloodwar in forth edition. Various Devil Lords and Demon Princes can send their minions after items, secrets and even staging grounds for invasions. Most devils will do it for gain, most demons may do it for the thrill of destruction, but again they will have leaders with their own motivations.
End of the day characters learn about fiends from npcs, just because that NPC is knowledgable does not mean the information is not tainted or simply wrong.
The worlds are your oyster, create what stories you will.
Well Tharizdun is the epitomy of the Far Realm isn't he? I had him as an enitity of that realm that found his way into our 'reality' due to the ancient Eladrin's use of the Vast Gate within Firestorm Peak (converted to White Plume Mountain). The gods saw the threat and made their pact to imprison him. Our ongoing campaign has elements of the Artifact of Evil, Return to the ToEE, Age of Worms, and Living Greyhawk plots, including one involving a cabal of cambions planning to use Hunger to destroy Iuz.
Any whisper of the Big T's release should be kept for Epic.
I'm trying very hard not to lapse into my curmudgeonly old man persona, but every time I see stuff like this, it takes a lot of mental strength to contain myself. It's as if no one at WotC R&D either knows or cares about the 30+ years of history attached to some of these names and concepts. To them, they're just convenient monikers they can swipe for their own creations, the past be damned.
Such a shame -- and such a lost opportunity.
Said perfectly.....and the reason I departed from buying their offerings.
Now on my return (after 10 year sabbatical) the only course I see is how to incorporate their "offerings" back into something external and usable.
This my collegues is the challenge at hand .. if we have the strength to undertake it.
Further, Maldin's Grand Unified Theory of Life, the Multiverse and Everything presents a wonderful unique perspective on Tharizdun to build from. Read it here some where, not sure what thread ...certain a search would find it.
Someone necro-ed this thread to life? Ugh, let it die again.
Big T was left vague until 3e when he was brought into the story of the game. Most folks had their own ideas of who and what Tharizdun was.
4e D&D has fixed The Chained God into the creation story of core assumptions of D&D.
It is actually pretty cool to be honest. It might not be your story. It certainly isn't E. Gary Gygax's story (then again anything beyond The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun and the original '83 Box Set isn't really Gary's version either). But it is one story out there.
Who cares if WotC uses Tharizdun in 4e? Everyone's game is their own, WotC isn't going to come to your house and rip up your campaign notes or send canonfire.com a C&D letter because there are varying views on him.
Every edition of D&D reshapes what has come before. Monsters that originally appeared in the Forgotten Realms have appeared in Greyhawk. Many monsters that had their start in Greyhawk have been found elsewhere.
The idea that any campaign world is some how pure and lessened by any change is frankly a mystery to me. Almost everyone here has their own version of Greyhawk. None are more valid than another. We have folks on this forum playing it with RuneQuest for Pete's sake.
If 4e isn't your cup of tea, go find a version that is and find your happy place.
I don't go to other edition forum post how their version of Greyhawk sucks, how about folks start showing the same courtesy here. If you got a beef with WotC go to their forums and vent there among the gibbering flametards that populate their forums.
In short leave this forum to those that enjoy this edition and want to do something constructive.
/RANT
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Sun King of Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
While it is true that any thread can be resurrected, people ought to be aware of when the last post in any thread was made and reply to the thread accordingly, rather than as if the thread's conversion was continuing from just the previous day.
And I pity the fool who messes with Mr. T. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
