Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Default setting for 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 3179193" data-attributes="member: 4134"><p>Can't we make one of those sticky?</p><p></p><p>The answer stays the same: Greyhawk, the way it's used now: hardly. Enough to base homeworlds on if you're not experienced enough to create something from scratch, but not too much, which would pen you in. GH has been doing this job for quite some time now, and can continue doing it.</p><p></p><p>And it's doing a great job: It's vanilla enough to act as a base, there's hardly any people who really hate it.</p><p></p><p>FR might work, but it might chase away those who hate the Realms (yeah, I know, a lot of people hate the Realms because they are prejudiced against FR-Fans, pathetic as that might be, and others just don't know how to use the Realms properly).</p><p></p><p>Eberron can't work because there's too much weird stuff in there. The basic setting should not have weird stuff in it. That's for other settings. If the base setting is already weird, it would skew the perspective. You'd either force all other settings to use that stuff, or you'd basically have a setting that's "weird and different" because it's not. It's just not using all that crazy stuff that has been declared norm. Plus, Eberron really isn't for everyone.</p><p></p><p>Designing a brand new setting just for the core rules seems way too much work. They can always design a brand new setting and sell it as a Campaign Setting, but they wouldn't do that if it didn't offer something new, and that means, again, that it's not really suitable as base setting. </p><p></p><p>Ressurecting an old setting is not a good idea, either: It's unnecessary, many of them are too weird, or are just another vanilla fantasy setting. Why fix what isn't broken? Stick to GH.</p><p></p><p>OGL settings are right out. They'd probably have to buy those, and that would drive up the game's price - while not improving the game in any significant way.</p><p></p><p>No setting at all is partly the way. There should be something do base everything on, some defaults to use when you don't want to bother with that sort of thing (like creating your own pantheon when you really don't care what the gods' names are). It should be subtle, but I think the way it is now works fine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kae'Yoss, post: 3179193, member: 4134"] Can't we make one of those sticky? The answer stays the same: Greyhawk, the way it's used now: hardly. Enough to base homeworlds on if you're not experienced enough to create something from scratch, but not too much, which would pen you in. GH has been doing this job for quite some time now, and can continue doing it. And it's doing a great job: It's vanilla enough to act as a base, there's hardly any people who really hate it. FR might work, but it might chase away those who hate the Realms (yeah, I know, a lot of people hate the Realms because they are prejudiced against FR-Fans, pathetic as that might be, and others just don't know how to use the Realms properly). Eberron can't work because there's too much weird stuff in there. The basic setting should not have weird stuff in it. That's for other settings. If the base setting is already weird, it would skew the perspective. You'd either force all other settings to use that stuff, or you'd basically have a setting that's "weird and different" because it's not. It's just not using all that crazy stuff that has been declared norm. Plus, Eberron really isn't for everyone. Designing a brand new setting just for the core rules seems way too much work. They can always design a brand new setting and sell it as a Campaign Setting, but they wouldn't do that if it didn't offer something new, and that means, again, that it's not really suitable as base setting. Ressurecting an old setting is not a good idea, either: It's unnecessary, many of them are too weird, or are just another vanilla fantasy setting. Why fix what isn't broken? Stick to GH. OGL settings are right out. They'd probably have to buy those, and that would drive up the game's price - while not improving the game in any significant way. No setting at all is partly the way. There should be something do base everything on, some defaults to use when you don't want to bother with that sort of thing (like creating your own pantheon when you really don't care what the gods' names are). It should be subtle, but I think the way it is now works fine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Default setting for 4E?
Top