I do hope that it will be more interesting than the D&D version of "In the grim darkness of the far past, there was only war".
Hey Mike, you need a forum for the "Points of Light" campaign setting!
I do hope that it will be more interesting than the D&D version of "In the grim darkness of the far past, there was only war".
My understanding is that the "points of light in a sea of darkness" is a model for campaign settings, and not an actual campaign setting.
My understanding is that the "points of light in a sea of darkness" is a model for campaign settings, and not an actual campaign setting.
I agree, but I do think it would be a cool name for a setting.
I've spoken to several new gamers recently that got the three core books and then had no idea what to do with them. They didn't want to jump into any of the other published settings because there was so much stuff already published for them and none of the proper names were consistent wit the core books. They noticed the names of the deities and the references to Greyhawk and they didn't know how to get more information on this "core" setting.
WotC needs to either make one of their supported settings the default D&D setting or they need to make this "Points of Light" world the 4th core book so that the references and proper names are consistent.
Either way, they need to drop the Greyhawk names from the game if they're not going to support the setting. It just insults the hardcore Greyhawk fans and confuses the new players.
Either way, they need to drop the Greyhawk names from the game if they're not going to support the setting. It just insults the hardcore Greyhawk fans and confuses the new players.
I dunno, this was the state of affairs for an extended period of 2nd ed, and everything was just fine. Not the names of the deities, but the spells and certain magic items endured with Greyhawk names.
They're just establishing that this is a core idea that settings are developed on.
Interestingly, this is pretty much exactly what a few of my homebrew campaigns were like. It seems like a brilliant concept for the Core assumption.
This is just the "Default" for the core books.
My understanding at Gencon was that 4E was supposed to be entirely world "neutral", i.e. no ties to any campaign setting. While the Points of Light article is pretty generic, it is also specific. You can't go into detail on any kind of default setting and remain neutral. Maybe I misheard, though, and rumors do run rampant.
You can't go into detail on any kind of default setting and remain neutral. Maybe I misheard, though, and rumors do run rampant.
I dunno about mishearing. I do think you are probably misinterpreting. The amount of "Greyhawk" that appeared in 3.5 products was so sparse as to be unrecognizable as Greyhawk. It felt more like Greyhawk was used as a name generator. Very rarely was there any glimpse to events or places of the setting.
Really though, this "points of light" feels very much like the assumed setting that BECMI was built upon. Not necessarily Mystara, though much of points of light could fit right there without problem, I'm talking about the boxed sets themselves.
The amount of "Greyhawk" that appeared in 3.5 products was so sparse as to be unrecognizable as Greyhawk. It felt more like Greyhawk was used as a name generator. Very rarely was there any glimpse to events or places of the setting.
Which is actually one of the things that always bothered me. I don't mind a default setting per se, but don't do it halfway. Give it the full support it needs. As my mother used to say when I stood there with the door open, "In or out."
:P
Points of Light implies less clash of kingdoms major war campaigning; more like clash of tribes, with therefore less flying cavalry, siege constructs, and wizard squads. A less vast cultivated countryside means smaller standing armies and thus more demand for small groups of powerful individuals!
I love it! Travel is truly an undertaking, news is valuable, unusual items or services require a quest to acquire, isolated communities develop odd customs...
Points of Light should have a different feel from both of the two types of games I usually ran; city-based stealth and intrigue games that required a metropolis, and frontier based semi-wilderness games, wherein there was still an established kingdom at the characters' backs.
Knowing your characters' medium sized town is IT for many miles around changes the feeling of venturing from home.
Where is the trade-hub metropolis in Points of Light? What are the implications for the availability of rare or highly magical items?
Given that 4e is supposed to put less emphasis on magic items as part of a standard power level, then the implication seems interesting.
Since the players did at least stop the being, I decided not to end things completely. The players got to help design a race that their character created to help repopulate the world and then basically said that the effort of reordering the cosmos put such a strain on the gods that they all fell into a deep slumber and could not effect the world any longer, though they could communicate with their followers by way of dreams.
What resulted from all of this was a world recovering from the brink of annihilation where everything from studied magic(spontaneous casting still was viable) to engineering(it was a sort of steampunk sort of world) to reading and writing were lost to nearly all. There were a few survivors of some of the original races(well descendants anyway... I allowed the gods a few centuries to piece the cosmos back together) that had some bits of incomplete knowledge passed down through the generations. But for the most part ignorance and(justified) fear of the unknown ruled the races.
I had never really thought of it in the terms of "points of light," but that was pretty much exactly what I had in mind when I started working on this campaign.
I agree, but I do think it would be a cool name for a setting.
The phrase "the wild lands" is used three times in the Points of Light article. Maybe something like that would make a cool name. Hmm.
OTOH, this philosophy seems completely counter to the Eberron campaign setting, where the known world is quite civilized and safe (but the 'known world' is fairly small compared to the 'unknown').
Hey, you know, since White Wolf's Pimp the Backhanding is on sale, maybe Wizards could compete with an intentionally slow witted, low humour version of D&D? Nevermind. This idea and points of light probably won't do well.
And what does it mean that a name is "prolonged"? How fast are you saying it? It's three syllables.
I disagree with the idea that "points of light" would be a good setting. The name is too prolonged, the concept of a bunch of floating lights in the darkness is pretty much subsumed by Planescape and Spelljammer, and I really do not think it is an interesting name. It's also too reminiscent of evil and stupid ideologies. A better concept for those who like "points of light" might be "Beavis and Butthead in the Dungeons of Bungholio" or "Vengeance of Kenny: Temple of Those Bastards".
Hey, you know, since White Wolf's Pimp the Backhanding is on sale, maybe Wizards could compete with an intentionally slow witted, low humour version of D&D? Nevermind. This idea and points of light probably won't do well.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me, at all. How is the default setting being darker... At all related to "low brow" humor?
Between this and the changes with Demons/Devils I think what we're seeing is NOT a setting neutral core but rather a largely undefined new setting that is going to be core.
I think what we're seeing is NOT a setting neutral core but rather a largely undefined new setting that is going to be core.
That's the impression I get from what I've read. There won't flesh out the setting in great detail, but it will be monster intensive in a way that many other settings are not. Given it's ill-defined nature, though, I imagine that altering things to suit a specific campaign will be a bit easier.
Actually, the only conversion issues I every really had related to:
- Converting gods/domains
- Converting high magic to low magic
I suspect the latter will still be an issue, and I'm waiting to see how the former works out. (Are they not going to identify the gods in the default setting?)
I suspect the latter will still be an issue, and I'm waiting to see how the former works out. (Are they not going to identify the gods in the default setting?)
I think we should avoid thinking that the Core rules have a default setting. I have read that the designers and developers are trying to make sure it is setting neutral. They have said that the Core rules are going to be written with a set of assumptions about how what type of setting the rules will be used in. That is what "points of light" is all about. That's not the same thing as defining a setting. Its like saying "I prefer my setting to be grim and gritty". That doesn't mean I prefer the Grim and Gritty setting.
So with that in mind, there is no reason to assume that whatever deities they describe are for any default setting. If they describe deities in the Core books, IMO, they are there purely as an example of what's available.
Also, IMO, deities should be in the PHB along with rules for planar travel and environments. Pantheons are almost always something that are the construction of the DM any ways. If the Core rules don't define a setting, then not injecting a pantheon in it makes sense. Just present the rules for how to customize a cleric's abilities in the PHB1. Then in the DMG1 put in a sampling of deities from all sorts of pantheons. Include Asmodeus, Pelor, Vecna, Lolth, but also include Thor, Athena, Set, etc.
I think we should avoid thinking that the Core rules have a default setting. I have read that the designers and developers are trying to make sure it is setting neutral. They have said that the Core rules are going to be written with a set of assumptions about how what type of setting the rules will be used in. That is what "points of light" is all about. That's not the same thing as defining a setting. Its like saying "I prefer my setting to be grim and gritty". That doesn't mean I prefer the Grim and Gritty setting.
As I read it, the key feature of "points of light" is very specific, namely you find yourself in a safe town that you can use as a base, but just outside the city walls... "Grim & Gritty" this ain't, because it essentially constrains the world demographics in a way that "grim and gritty" doesn't.
So if what you say is true, then they need to abandon "points of light" now. I've never played on a setting that was entirely made up of a few isolated civilized areas surrounded by lawless and dangerous monster-riddled ones. Where, outside the civilized ares, the local lords can't assert their power because the world is just that dangerous. That leaves those people who live out there on their own and at the mercy of dark forces, crying out for heroes.
In the settings I tend to use, there might me monster-riddled areas, but there are also well-developed civilized nations with established cultures and economies, effective armies and systems of law and order that extend well out into the countryside, where peasants live, work and farm in relative safety.
On the other hand, "points of light" makes for a good "quick start" for those learning the game without having a specific setting ready or in mind (which is how I first played it back in the early-early 1980's). There are plenty of monsters to fight, a ready explanation for why they are there (and why the local lord hasn't chased them off), you don't need to travel for days (or worry about geography, horses and provisioning), there are plenty of people to save in the various undefended villages, and there is a safe city to which to retreat when you get too banged up or need to sell your loot.
Frankly, I have played the majority of my homebrew campaigns in worlds that resemble the points of light conceits. There are portions of established WotC settings that are also like points of light, especially in the Forgotten Realms like The North.
As I read it, the key feature of "points of light" is very specific, namely you find yourself in a safe town that you can use as a base, but just outside the city walls...
Yes, but we're not being given the names of cities and towns, rulers, history, etc, etc, which is what makes a setting.
I wasn't describing "points of light" as grim and gritty. I was pointing out that points of light is nothing by a description like grim and gritty is a description. There is no setting called "Points of Light" like there is not setting called "Grim and Gritty".
Frankly, I have played the majority of my homebrew campaigns in worlds that resemble the points of light conceits. There are portions of established WotC settings that are also like points of light, especially in the Forgotten Realms like The North.
I didn't mean to imply that you were equating Grom and Gritty with Points of Light, I was merely noting that "grim and gritty" is very generic as it only relates mostly to tone. Points of Light, OTOH, severely contrains the political geography, economic development and demographics of a campaign setting in a way that "grim and gritty" does not.
Also, I agree that points of light can apply to some settings, or to certain specific areas within settings, but it definitely does not apply across the board. Too many games in which I play have intra- and international politics as an important element of the campaign for me to see the "all lords and rulers are huddled behind their walls for security, in the isolated bastions of civilization" narrative as "setting neutral."
Yes, but we're not being given the names of cities and towns, rulers, history, etc, etc, which is what makes a setting.
I don't think 3e gave any of that either (unless you went out and bought greyhawk supplements, the core rulkes never mentioned the history of Oerth or the names of cities or rulers). The only thing that identified it as "Greyhawk" were the gods and the names of character planted in certain spells (and the SRD eliminated the latter).
In that sense, 3.0/3.5 was more "setting neutral" than Points of Light (as it's being described), since Points of Light has severe constraints on the shape of nations and the power of kings, and 3.0's default merely makes you rename a few gods.
I don't think 3e gave any of that either (unless you went out and bought greyhawk supplements, the core rulkes never mentioned the history of Oerth or the names of cities or rulers). The only thing that identified it as "Greyhawk" were the gods and the names of character planted in certain spells (and the SRD eliminated the latter).
In that sense, 3.0/3.5 was more "setting neutral" than Points of Light (as it's being described), since Points of Light has severe constraints on the shape of nations and the power of kings, and 3.0's default merely makes you rename a few gods.
Well, the names of gods are given in the PHB. And 3.x does make assumptions, just as "Points of Light" does. 3.x assumes that alignment is objective, that magic items have a certain degree of availability, that necromancy doesn't really heal, that undead are inherently evil, etc.
And 3.x does make assumptions, just as "Points of Light" does. 3.x assumes that alignment is objective, that magic items have a certain degree of availability, that necromancy doesn't really heal, that undead are inherently evil, etc.
I never really though of most of those things as specific to Greyhawk. OD&D was definitely setting neutral, for example (well there was a pre-AD&D Greyhawk, but no one I knew ever heard of it, and the rules never hinted at it) and alignment was objective, magic items were almost completely unavailable, necromancy didn't heal, and I think undead were all evil.
Granted the line between "generic rule" and "campaign specific rule" gets a little fuzzy, since different worlds can blur, reverse, bend or eliminate any rule they want (hence no objective alignment in Eberron, for example).
PoL essentially says "kingdoms are small and insular," and seems to suggest a more or less city-state (or smaller) sort of political structures, since the areas outside the fortified cities have been described as lawless or nearly so. Since that directly affects how you draw the map, it seems especially campaign specific to me.
Again, I'll be interested to see how they talk about gods. As tedious as it might be to read, I hope they speak about, say, "the god of war" or "the god of family" (and speak about them only in the most generic terms) rather than referencing names and specific pantheons. That way I won't every need to do "conversions" or figure out which of my gods is most like Wee Jas or whatever.
I never really though of most of those things as specific to Greyhawk.
They're not specific to Greyhawk, but if you use those rules, you're making assumptions about the setting.
PoL essentially says "kingdoms are small and insular," and seems to suggest a more or less city-state (or smaller) sort of political structures, since the areas outside the fortified cities have been described as lawless or nearly so. Since that directly affects how you draw the map, it seems especially campaign specific to me.
And the availability of magic items assumed in 3.x assumes a certain prevalence of magic and a certain range of economic systems.
Again, I'll be interested to see how they talk about gods. As tedious as it might be to read, I hope they speak about, say, "the god of war" or "the god of family" (and speak about them only in the most generic terms) rather than referencing names and specific pantheons. That way I won't every need to do "conversions" or figure out which of my gods is most like Wee Jas or whatever.
The name of the god isn't what makes it specific to a setting. It's the details about the god that does. A campaign with a Chaotic war god has a very different role for war than a campaign with a Lawful war god, no matter what name is used. Hell, the very fact that there's a god of war in the first place makes certain assumptions about the setting.
There is so much more to a campaign setting than the spread of civilization, and many of these other features have been assumed to take certain forms in the rules of all previous editions of D&D.
They're not specific to Greyhawk, but if you use those rules, you're making assumptions about the setting.
And the availability of magic items assumed in 3.x assumes a certain prevalence of magic and a certain range of economic systems.
The name of the god isn't what makes it specific to a setting. It's the details about the god that does. A campaign with a Chaotic war god has a very different role for war than a campaign with a Lawful war god, no matter what name is used. Hell, the very fact that there's a god of war in the first place makes certain assumptions about the setting.
There is so much more to a campaign setting than the spread of civilization, and many of these other features have been assumed to take certain forms in the rules of all previous editions of D&D.
On magic items, I've never thought that the mage-mart, magic-is-bought-and-sold-like-butter-and-eggs concept 3.5 used as a default made much economic sense, even in an overall developed economy with extensive nation-states. (I never thought the "fixed price economy" of D&D made any sense, so that is little wonder.) As such, it always seemed dissociated from the campaign setting to me (see, for example, PoL which seems likely to have mage-marts and *limited* economic development outside of the strongholds of civilization).
As for the Gods, where in 3.5 do they talk about "the details of what the gods do"? The PHB has a short description of the Greyhawk gods...but you can generally ignore it. There are a few other short references, but they can usually be ignored. When I port something into my games (like a PrC), my problem is usually just identifying which god has a similar portfolio of domains and alignment to (say) Pelor. I certainly have never worried about any of my fictional deities mimicking his backstory or actions (nor could I tell you what his backstory is or actions have been).
As for the Gods, where in 3.5 do they talk about "the details of what the gods do"?
I said, "The name of the god isn't what makes it specific to a setting. It's the details about the god that does." You seem to have misread the second sentence as, "It's the details about what the god does." (The bolded text is different from what I originally said. I'll reword the second sentence as follows: "It's the details about the gods that makes them setting specific."
Also on the "points of light" idea, In my opinion, a game world is perfectly capable of having both civilized areas, with nation states staring at each other over a demarked border, as well as areas of wild land, with an occasional city state here and there.
Two thoughts concerning the points of light campaign setting.
It's not a campaign setting. It's a quality, a characteristic, of a setting.
(see, for example, PoL which seems likely to have mage-marts and *limited* economic development outside of the strongholds of civilization).
The mage mart effect is one thing I doubt we'll see. They've been pretty keen on pointing out that they want to limit the "Christmas Tree" effect in 3E, which includes the whole magic item economy.
Also, as has been noted before, you (I mean in the plural sense; not just you, Pandaemoni) need to remember that PoL is not a campaign setting. It is a theme or assumption on which to base a campaign setting that contains some of its own pre-developed elements, such as the planes, racial, and monster fluff. There are no maps, locations or histories, except for an unconnected jumble of stories and plot hooks that serve to give monsters, races, and magic items some back story and context. It's sort of an anti-setting, or the non-setting that would exist if you played a campaign where you just strung together randomly purchased adventure modules.
~~~since Points of Light has severe constraints on the shape of nations and the power of kings,~~~
What? No it doesn't. What it does it allow YOU to make up whatever details you want. Without feeling constrained to follow any of the FR/Ebberon/GH, etc stuff.
Thus you can make the "point of light" any size & brightness that you care to. Ok, the designers talk about towns & villages. But you could just as easily talk about baronies, kingdoms, etc.
Wich has really been in effect since the dawn of the entire game.
Hell, you can even apply PoL directly to any of the known settings. (Note; I'm just assuming Ebberon is flexable enough, having not read it myself).
Infact, it's already been used in those. By both TSR & WoTC.
Only those with limited imaginations should feel restricted by the PoL concept.
What? No it doesn't. What it does it allow YOU to make up whatever details you want.
As noted above, from what I've read (a month ago now, so if there is new info, I haven't read it), PoL allows you to use "whatever details you want" as long as you want "points of civilization surrounded by areas that are entirely lawless or nearly so."
In every campaign setting I've ever designed, the lawless and nearly lawless areas were the exception and not the rule. From what I've read (again, which may be dated) PoL assumes that civilization and security are the exception, lawlessness the rule. It may not be a campaign setting proper, but it has the potential to be a pain in the ass to convert to other settings that do not match that paradigm for those of us who imagine that the law and the political power that creates it extends almost everywhere.
Sure, you can increase the size of the point, but of the points start touching then they are no longer the isolated points that the concept assumes. Why even call it points of light then and describe it as they did? Apparently, from your description, what they meant was "there will be no default setting or assumptions of any kind regarding the nature of everyday affairs in the core material." Instead, their concept seemed to suggest that they were making assumptions about those things, and the primary assumption was that there were monsters lurking just a short distance away, so any adventurer can find some combat in a short period of time with no complications caused by "laws," "rulers," "constabulary" or the like (and where, as I recall, many NPCs were waiting to be saved by adventuring heroes, as there was no local, regular force available to do the saving otherwise).
In any event, I didn't mean to personally offend and upset you with my comments. I'm not even really sure why you got so riled by them.
By what do I mean, is take the Empire for instance. It's thriving nation, with Provinces, Cities, Town, and villas, and yet the land is rife with danger. Despite having roads and patrols, the wilderness is a dangerous place and relatively avoided by most common folk including most patrols.
Making matters worse, unimportant towns and villas have poor communication with other beyond their immediate vicinity leading to all sorts of problems that can remain unknown to the Empire. Some villas become disease ridden, chaos infested, or other such problems and forgotten by the world at large.
Medieval Europe was much like this in the Dark Ages and during the Black Death, and they had no real danger in the forbidding forests beyond bandits and superstition. In the fantasy realm this danger is very real, and much more difficult to remove. The PoL concept fits in well with most campaigns, but something they never discussed in any great length.
Imagine a world shrouded in darkness -- vast stretches of wilderness untouched by the civilizing hands of humans and dwarves, dotted with crumbling ruins left by the ancient empire of the tieflings or the last great elf kingdom.
Scattered far and wide amid that darkness, like faint stars in the night sky, are the enclaves of civilization; here and there one finds a great city-state or strong barony, but mostly you encounter frontier towns or close-knit villages of farmers and artisans who cling close together for protection against the dark.
...
[T]he world as a vast sea of darkness, with only feeble, flickering points of light keeping civilization alive, is a core idea of 4th Edition D&D.
That seems to suggest small political units to me, unless strong and vibrant nation states can be described as "feeble and flickering points of light." It's a world of darkness with occasional and widely spaced areas of civilization. The players venture into the lawless areas, kills monsters then retreat to the safe comfy tavern for 8 hours of rest. It's a fine starting point for brand new players, but not much use to me.
Just trying to get a feel for my own campaign setting and what others may be doing.
Based on a points of light concept. What kind of distances between towns are DM's looking at, Cities hundreds of miles apart, towns and villages a good 50-100 miles apart?
Just trying to get a feel for my own campaign setting and what others may be doing.
I'm looking at the travel tables to try to get an idea on how far to space the towns. I'm figuring the average person has to walk, since they probably can't afford to own a horse, so in an 8 hour day, assuming unencumbered and not poking around, a human can travel 24 miles. A light horse can move at a walk of 48 miles.
I plan on my heroes starting in a small town that is the hub for a farming community. There will be some outlying hamlets and single farms within about a day's walk/ride of the town, but the next largest town/city will need to be a lot farther away to give the community that isolated feel. You can't have the next large community so close that they could easily come to aid, but you don't want it so far away that no one would even know about it other than the road will eventually get you to a place no one has been to because it is too far away. Besides they also need someplace to trade their farming goods with so they can get necessities they need. A wagon travels 16 miles a day. So a farmer- and I assume all the farmers would travel in a caravan for safety in numbers- could make it to the next large community in 3 days. A person walking unencumbered could make it in 2 days, while the horse could make it in 1 day. That is the closet I would put any large community - assuming humans only since they are the most populous race. There could always be settlements of the other races closer if you want. So to answer your question, I am placing communities of large size- small town and up- at least 50 miles apart. The closest city for my campaign will actually be about 6 days to travel by horse to get to, so about 300 miles away. If there is a nearby river that goes by, then travel times will be a lot quicker, but encounter different hazards. (Which for my game, there is.)
Please see the thread if you're interested:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=915461
Or check out Ravenloft on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenloft
In fact, you might say the original prototype for "Points of Light" is B2: Keep on the Borderlands.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=939515 (Your 4th edition campaign)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=933929 (The darkness surrounding the PoL)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=945904 (PoL: against the Bandits and Raiders)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=942747 (PoL is not just for post-apocalyptic fantasy)
It felt more like Greyhawk was used as a name generator. Very rarely was there any glimpse to events or places of the setting.
I think they've moved beyond using just Greyhawk as a name generator. The pantheon article suggests that they're now quite willing to pull names out of any setting and stick them together.
The whole issue of a 4E core setting is starting to irritate me. People have taken to referring to "Points of Light" as if it were an actual setting, and not just a concept. That seems to be fed to some extent by comments from the developers about historical events in the core setting (for example, I've seen comments about which race dominated the last world-spanning empire, though I forget now - was it human?), which suggest that there actually is a new setting in development. Maybe it's going to be left hazy and ... well, generic, such that DMs can fill in details as they like, or easily transplant things into the setting of their choice, but nevertheless, there are details being developed.
And what city are they going to include in the DMG? It's bound to be a known city, ripped out of its context and dropped into this generic mish-mash setting. Will it be Greyhawk City? Hommlet? Waterdeep? Baldur's Gate? Neverwinter? This might be taking things off on a tangent, but what the heck, I'm on a roll. Can you imagine a write-up in the 4E DMG detailing the Temple of Bane in Greyhawk? Or the Temple of Pelor in Waterdeep? Why is it that, on the one hand, the 4E developers have been so keen to ditch the established and make up their own stuff (can you say "Feywild"?), while on the other hand, they keep reusing names when they should just make new ones? They want some sense of history and nostalgia, while at the same time making a completely new game that does not respect history or nostalgia.
Or it could be a setting where most of the NPCs are evil, conniving and dark, seeking to kill the players where they have a few small places of respite.
Points of Light.
And what city are they going to include in the DMG? It's bound to be a known city, ripped out of its context and dropped into this generic mish-mash setting. Will it be Greyhawk City? Hommlet? Waterdeep? Baldur's Gate? Neverwinter? This might be taking things off on a tangent, but what the heck, I'm on a roll. Can you imagine a write-up in the 4E DMG detailing the Temple of Bane in Greyhawk? Or the Temple of Pelor in Waterdeep? Why is it that, on the one hand, the 4E developers have been so keen to ditch the established and make up their own stuff (can you say "Feywild"?), while on the other hand, they keep reusing names when they should just make new ones? They want some sense of history and nostalgia, while at the same time making a completely new game that does not respect history or nostalgia.
It's going to be a village or small town. You're not going to see Greyhawk or Waterdeep in the DMG. You're going to see one of those little generic, on the border villages that have interchangeably populated all D&D worlds since the time people needed a place to sell their loot. My guess is that it will either be Hommlet or the Keep on the Borderlands, since both are exceptionally generic and have a nice nostalgia about them.
Which brings me to your second point. They want to create a sense of nostalgia, but more in the "remember your first game?" sense than the "remember this dungeon?" sense. In doing so, they realize that there's a bunch of classic stuff that is great and should be kept/adapted/updated, and that there's another bunch of classic stuff that's just lame and drawn from metagame concerns instead of interesting and exciting story elements (Bitopia, anyone?).
Now, as far as people thinking of PoL as a setting, that's kind of understandable. It all depends on what you consider a setting. Personally, I think maps and overarching meta-plots are necessary for a setting, otherwise, you just have locations, but that's just my measure of where you draw the line. Someone with a more ambiguous definition of what a setting is may very well consider PoL a setting.
Does anyone know for sure what this setting(if it is a setting) is about? Or is it just all speculation? Please enlighten me.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070829a
Points of Light is not a setting. It's just a series of assumptions underlying the game that need to be reflected in your game's setting. Let's say you have the rule. "natural rivers always begin at higher elevations and then move to lower elevations, and never vice vera." Obviously, that is not a setting, but it is a background rule that would need to be incorporated into a setting/geography.
Point of Light is basically just like that. The game will make certain assumptions, like:
- civilization and order and all things good are limited to isolated, usually small communities
- they are surrounded by dark forces
- towns do not stay in touch with one another, and trade is limited because of the danger of traveling
- strong central governments don't exist, rulers cannot project power beyond the borders of their own communities very effectively and cannot maintain control of overly extended territories very long
- because "law" barely exists (and is limited to the PoLs), nearly superhuman heroes are all that stand between the flickering lights and the flourishing darkness.
That is not a particular setting, but it means that games featuring large stable nations and their (to me, boring) political interactions will be "non-standard." In stead PCs will be able to eat breakfast in the local PoL tavern, travel a mile or two and kill some baddies, head back to town for lunch and healing, then head right back out of the town and the combat-filled darkness.
Points of Light is there to make the game focus on what it's awesome at, combat. That will constrain some people who prefer different play styles, and they will have to adapt, make up houserules or stick with 3.5 or some other system. Some others are afraid that players will use the system as an engine to "grind out XP" like in an MMORPG, though I have no idea why those people even play the game if their goal isn't to level their characters, then go fight more interesting and challenging threats.
BUT, you have to realize that not all players want XP grinds and senseless slaughter(Even if they are Kobolds!) throughout the entire game.
So is this PoL more of a Setting builder? like if a DM said, F&^% the realms!, we'll use the PoL system, is that all the system is????Just go out into the wild, kill, and sell ur fwag??No nations, no intrigue, no fluff?
Well thanks for explaining that for me man, I am in your dept.;)
BUT, you have to realize that not all players want XP grinds and senseless slaughter(Even if they are Kobolds!) throughout the entire game.
So is this PoL more of a Setting builder? like if a DM said, F&^% the realms!, we'll use the PoL system, is that all the system is????Just go out into the wild, kill, and sell ur fwag??No nations, no intrigue, no fluff?
There will be fluff. Each PoL will be like a city, town or fief, and will have it's own law, corrupt officials, crime and flavor. There won't be very much interaction between them, though (though it might occasionally happen), because they are supposed to be isolated, alone and in a precarious position relative to the evil around them.
It does make D&D more video game-like (you start in Town X and defend it from its enemies and increasingly travel further and further across the world as you become more powerful), but video games are fun, so why not emulate their strengths?
I disagree with the idea that "points of light" would be a good setting. The name is too prolonged, the concept of a bunch of floating lights in the darkness is pretty much subsumed by Planescape and Spelljammer, and I really do not think it is an interesting name. It's also too reminiscent of evil and stupid ideologies. A better concept for those who like "points of light" might be "Beavis and Butthead in the Dungeons of Bungholio" or "Vengeance of Kenny: Temple of Those Bastards".
Hey, you know, since White Wolf's Pimp the Backhanding is on sale, maybe Wizards could compete with an intentionally slow witted, low humour version of D&D? Nevermind. This idea and points of light probably won't do well.
I'm Calling my new 4e Setting:
Midden
Every point of light a dungheap