Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8252395" data-attributes="member: 27996">This is because D&amp;D was never designed for a specific setting.D&amp;D was always a hodge-podge of different Fantasy S&amp;S, and Weird Fantasy sources. If you were to take a step back and create the next edition of D&amp;D for a specific setting from the ground&nbsp; up, a lot things would need to be mechanically re-thought out.If it doesn't have a purpose; it should be cut out.Because Limits are important. They're not just how we keep things in check, but they're the best way to give things a unique flavor. When you have a world that includes every D&amp;D class, and assumes the existence of every D&amp;D monster somewhere,&nbsp; it's going to end up looking a bit like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, no matter what you do. The best way to create a new world isn't to come up with a new spin on existing classes or monsters; but to exclude things.IMHO, you should stick to your first instinct and cut Sorcerers out.Rather than trying to come up with yet another reason to include more of &quot;Core D&amp;D&quot; , your setting will be more unique without having to justify why sorcerers are in your world. Because the more you include the more your setting will trend towards a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk pastiche.Them's the naughty words right there...I have seen it on this very board that when GM's start talking about restricting this or that element from the core PHB for their home brew campaign they start to get very politelyish pushback for not being &quot;creative&quot; enough to accommodate what a player may want to play regardless of the settings conceits.When IMHO it is restriction that tends to breed creativity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jaeger, post: 8252395, member: 27996"] This is because D&D was never designed for a specific setting. D&D was always a hodge-podge of different Fantasy S&S, and Weird Fantasy sources. If you were to take a step back and create the next edition of D&D for [I]a specific setting[/I] from the ground up, a lot things would need to be mechanically re-thought out. If it doesn't have a purpose;[I] it should be cut out.[/I] Because Limits are important. They're not just how we keep things in check, but [I]they're the best way to give things a unique flavor.[/I] When you have a world that includes every D&D class, and assumes the existence of every D&D monster somewhere, it's going to end up looking a bit like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, no matter what you do. The best way to create a new world isn't to come up with a new spin on existing classes or monsters; but to exclude things. IMHO, you should stick to your first instinct and cut Sorcerers out. Rather than trying to come up with yet another reason to include more of "Core D&D" , your setting will be more unique without having to justify why sorcerers are in your world. Because the more you include the more your setting will trend towards a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk pastiche. Them's the naughty words right there... I have seen it on this very board that when GM's start talking about restricting this or that element from the core PHB for their home brew campaign they start to get very politely[I]ish pushback[/I] for not being "creative" enough to accommodate what a player may want to play regardless of the settings conceits. When IMHO it is restriction that tends to breed creativity. [/QUOTE]

Verification