Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faraer" data-source="post: 1783966" data-attributes="member: 6318">Can we change the subject of this topic? At the moment it's associating Charles Ryan with the inane and deameaning term 'fluff', which I'm sure he doesn't want.Rules for rules' sake appeals to a lot of the people who buy a lot of RPG books, but it puts off the potentially far larger contingent for whom there are too many rules already.Equally, why should anyone care what the current WotC designers and freelancers have to say about subjects (in rules or content) totally out of any common context of setting or play style? Isolated bits and pieces without the synergy and shared origin that give depth, and made up not out of any rooted source or common inspiration but just to fill pages for money. Lore such as that published in the Realms books (Serpent Kingdoms has plenty and it's excellent) is permanent; the occasional 'flavor text' (usually subsidiary to 'crunchy bits') in the general D&D books will be forgotten when 4th edition comes round.</blockquote>