Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5816839" data-attributes="member: 8461">I much prefer the 3E presentation of the Realms, which was large and expansive, which to my mind is exactly what the Realms should be.I disagree with the idea that the Realms need to be reset to how they were in the 1E gray boxed set. From what I understand, this presented a little-detailed area, without much context of where it existed in a larger world, so that DM's could freely flesh out the world as they liked.I say that's a bad thing, if for no other reason than we've already had a campaign setting that does that. Which one? ALL OF THEM!Seriously, the descriptions of the 1E FR campaign setting sound like Greyhawk, like Mystara, like Birthright...hell, in terms of level of detail it even sounds like Dark Sun and Ravenloft!The thing I liked most about the Realms was the vast amounts of detail it presented; so much detail that you could dig into it in a scholar-like fashion, the way Tolkien fans could for Middle Earth. I liked that D&D had a setting that rich, that developed, that expansive that you could learn so much about it.For those who didn't like that level of detail, you can just ignore it or rule it out in your games. Is the fear of having some annoying "canon-lawyer" really so bad that you'd prefer the entire campaign line be reset rather than allowing for one D&D setting to be rich in depth?[/rant]</blockquote>