Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 5460549" data-attributes="member: 12460">First comment in this thread:One of the proverbial "nails" in the coffin for me when 4e was released was their decision to completely drop Greyhawk, including most references to Greyhawk place locations. Clearly they wanted to make a setting-neutral game, and that didn't appeal to me. I'm a smart guy; I know how to adapt a setting to my liking.One of the things that was so appealing about Greyhawk, which was the original default setting of D&D, was that it was very generic, but still rich in lore. If you wanted to, you could set virtually any Greyhawk adventure in a different setting without changing a thing. Maybe change the name of a god from St. Cuthbert to Helm, but it was a cosmetic detail. And if you wanted to, you could have the adventure take place in the dynamic Greyhawk setting and be part of an exciting ongoing narrative.So yes, I think the OP has a good point. Setting-neutral systems don't seem to hold as much appeal, for me at least. One thing I liked about some of the later titles for 3.5 was notes for including something in different settings, usually just Eberron and Forgotten Realms, but that was a brilliant move in my opinion. I am running an Eberron 3.5 campaign right now, and those little tidbits to help me tie stuff to the setting are awesome.</blockquote>