Rejoice you fvckers, Living Greyhawk is dead to 4e.

[erik]

I suppose that I am ambivalent towards LG's imminent demise, though I do think it was neat that there was a campaign network out there of such scale. I am skeptical that whatever next Living campaign is spawned will have the amount of volunteerism that is the foundation to LG's popularity and sustainability. Then again, the current form of LG isn't the first form, so there may be some hope for a future Living campaign in the future.

I know many here hate LG/RPGA with a passion, but they did make much roleplaying possible for people like myself who otherwise probably couldn't have had the fun.


http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3 ... r]Greyhawk will not be default setting in core
We want to leverage the assets of the assumed parts of a D&D world – Mordenkainen, Bigby, Vecna, Llolth, Tiamat, Asmodeus, etc. However, we also want to call upon the great mythology that is more commonly known such as Thor, etc.

...

Living Greyhawk – will be coming to a triumphant close next year, and they will be starting fresh with a new batch of characters and players. This will be discussed tonight or tomorrow[/quote]


Really that whole linked article is tons of gems, not just LG related.


[edit: and just so y'alls know, I am calling ya "fvckers" in the most congenial sense possible. you're my favorite people to bitch with online]

[cthulhu]

A whole bunch of that stuff sounds pretty positive - they have noted a problem with skills, multiclassing, and other problems.

[MrWaeseL]

We want to leverage the assets of the assumed parts of a D&D world

What the fuck does that even mean?

[Joy_Division]

They want to make you pay extra to get some mordenkainen with your D&D

[Username17]

Nah. It means that hey are going to pull a Forgotten Realms all over again. The Forgottn Realms has Moradin in it for no reason. Also it has Isis and Set from Conan - also for no reason.

What they are going to do in 4th edition is throw down all the stuff from Greyhawk that people remember. And then they are going to inject that shit into some new setting and hope it all sticks. I'm certain that they have already had marketting people go and ask focus groups to run down all the D&D icons they gave a shit about - so we can expect Vecna in the 4e setting, but not the Theocracy of the Pale.

-Username17

[nova88]

ditching greyhawk but retaining the right to namedrop
from it,and back to forgotten realms-sounds
suspiciously like 4e may be a return to living city
in RPGA IMO not necessarily a bad thing,but almost
all of the people who made LC work so well are long
gone. we shall see.

[Username17]

Every edition has its own pet setting. 2nd Edition AD&D had like five. I am virtually positive that 4th edition will produce its own setting. If it were up to me, the work on said setting would already be well under way, the 4th edition PHB would name drop to it, and the setting book for it would be due out in August of 2008, ready for Gencon next year.

That setting would showcase 4th edition "properties" and be produced by a group of people tied directly into the 4th edition design process.

-Username17

[Modesitt]

My guess is that there is that they're ditching the entire idea of a 'campaign setting'. There wont be a book about "The Kingdom of Narth, the kingdom of the north", there will be "The Kingdom of Narth, generic northern kingdom you can slip into your campaign setting anywhere there's space".

[Voss]

Don't know about that. They make a bit too much off having a dedicated campaign setting that they actually update.

Like Frank, I think there will be a new one. I don't, however, think they're smart enough to work it in from the get-go. They'll kludge it in later, like a badly done afterthought.

Some of that stuff does sound good, though. This

Iron Heroes vs. 4th Edition – Mike
Yes, there are some similiarities, ie, putting more emphasis on the class vs. the items for characters.

sounds particularly good to me.

So does the multi-classing bit, at least in theory.

Frank, I do hope that the 'Isis and Set from Conan' was a joke. Because although Howard cribbed them... well. Call it a pet peeve.

[Modesitt]

Don't know about that. They make a bit too much off having a dedicated campaign setting that they actually update.

I don't know about that. I think the reason they make so many is that they're so cheap to crank out. You can hammer out pages and pages of fiction in no time flat. Then you might have only a dozen pages of crunchy bits in the whole book, which might take as long to write and "balance" as the rest of the book put together.

[Voss]

Are you talking about that hypothetical 'Kingdom of Narth' type book or the current campaign settings? Because your description there fits either

It seems moot, though, since it seems that the 4E updates for FR and Eberron are happening

[Username17]

1187571850[/unixtime]]
Frank, I do hope that the 'Isis and Set from Conan' was a joke. Because although Howard cribbed them... well. Call it a pet peeve.

No, I'm dead serious. The "Set" in the FRCS doesn't resemble the Egyptian god of the same name at all - but he is a blatant rip from Howard.

You know, it's got the fvcking Scalykind domain.

-Username17

[Voss]

Ah. Chalk it up to my disinterest in the 'undeveloped' regions of FR- I didn't pay much attention to the regions where it looked like they were just shoe-horning real-world regions in because they couldn't be bothered with non-European stuff.

Set and Isis default to Egyptian in my head, for some strange reason.

[RandomCasualty]

1187474140[/unixtime]]Every edition has its own pet setting. 2nd Edition AD&D had like five. I am virtually positive that 4th edition will produce its own setting. If it were up to me, the work on said setting would already be well under way, the 4th edition PHB would name drop to it, and the setting book for it would be due out in August of 2008, ready for Gencon next year.

That setting would showcase 4th edition "properties" and be produced by a group of people tied directly into the 4th edition design process.

I'd prefer they just write their rules so that the old settings actually work and make sense, rather than just writing a bunch of unrelated rules and trying to tailor a setting to it.

I mean, every setting from Greyhawk to Eberron tries to create a pseudo-medieval setup. They have armies of knights going to war, and kings and kingdoms and all that crap. Yet, according to D&D rules, armies don't win the day. Sieges aren't week+ long affairs where you try to starve your enemy out. That sort of stuff just doesn't happen, even though every campaign author seems to want that stuff to happen.

So I say... why not write the rules such that the existing campaign worlds actually make some sense.

[Voss]

One thing that sounds decent is the 'towns in the wilderness' assumption that they say they are working into core. Anything to get away from the faux-medieval assumptions. Of course, they probably won't take out the renaissance-era anachronisms littering the equipment chapter...

And, of course, it doesn't mean squat for FR or Eberron, but maybe we will see a iron age themed setting for 4th.

[Aktariel]

"Personalizing and specializing your character is amped up, it’s one of the most powerful things about 4th edition. If you’re a barbarian, you’re not a frenzied berserker. If you’re a barbarian, you’re a barbarian for your entire career. The frenzied berserker and bear warrior will be at the very end."

Wait - If I'm supposed to "personalize and specialize" my character, and this shit is supposed to be "amped up," why are you taking options away from me?

What if I don't want to be a barbarian the whole way to 20+? I don't care how many "options" I have, I want to be a frenzied berserker.

Once again, multiclass warriors get the finger. Also the assfvcking.

With no Vaseline.


Unless I get pleasantly surprised. Which I doubt.