Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 5916351" data-attributes="member: 33904">To me this is really multiple questions.And considering my love for worldbuilding and homebrewing they are very important to me.First, there's always going to be implied setting. Every racial stat, every background, every bit of game economics, every cleric domain is implied setting. Monster statblocks and the presentation of PC races are propably the biggest factor in how intrusive the implied setting is.This is something 4th edition got wrong, imo. The PC races assumed an awful lot about the setting played and it doesn't help that a fair bit of these intrusions departed quite a bit from traditional D&D (which existing settings and homebrews had already taken into consideration). Likewise monster stats and presentation assumed an awful lot about the world. Heavily defined monster types are and example, as are the knowledge tables.The other question (or the other one I'm going to tackle, since I don't want to write a book here) is that of an example setting for the Core game. I think such a setting is needed, as not everyone wants to homebrew or buy a campaign setting. In the case of starters, they might not even be able to do so.The main weight the example or Core Setting should have to shoulder is providing for a backdrop of starter sets and adventure modules, as well as for gameplay and game examples in the core books (artifacts, Deities for clerics, etc.).The Core setting should be open ended, adaptable and, this is very important to me, completely divided from the implied setting. Both 3.X (especially in later products) and 4th edition failed that last part. As long as this divide is clear, I wouldn't mind a continuation of the Nenthir Vale or Greyhawk as "core setting". Fearun however, I think is to filled out and carries to much baggage to serve well in this function.</blockquote>

Verification