Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5916561" data-attributes="member: 51942">If you had to explain Rugby you might start by saying it's like American Football but [...].&nbsp; If you had to describe a Galaxy Tab you might say it's like an iPad but [...].My point?Explanation by example is a very natural technique. It's much harder to get across an idea from a purely abstract basis.5e should have an implied setting.&nbsp; It doesn't need to include a bunch of extraneous detail, but if things like choice of deity matter, it should have a list of deities and their descriptions.&nbsp; Similarly, if affiliation to an organization matters (say, through use of a theme or background), they should be mentioned.The setting doesn't need to be in the foreground; but its mere presence will help clarify how different parts of the game are interrelated so that customization is easier.&nbsp; The impact of choice of deity on a cleric's power list in contrast to say, a wizard's power list could be abstractly defined, but it's likely to be misunderstood or at best just boring.&nbsp; Better to just give an example and let people change it as they wish.&nbsp; As an added bonus, if you just don't care too much about some part of the setting (very likely), you implicitly get to copy the default setting, rather than needing to specify something yourself.I do think that things like the Nentir Vale don't need to be so explicitly fleshed out - it's enough to mention the default setting when directly relevant to the material at hand. The setting would then be a tool merely to help the game designers keep the game consistent, and the players (including DM) would normally only read about the setting indirectly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5916561, member: 51942"] If you had to explain Rugby you might start by saying it's like American Football but [...]. If you had to describe a Galaxy Tab you might say it's like an iPad but [...]. My point? Explanation by example is a very natural technique. It's much harder to get across an idea from a purely abstract basis. 5e should have an implied setting. It doesn't need to include a bunch of extraneous detail, but if things like choice of deity matter, it should have a list of deities and their descriptions. Similarly, if affiliation to an organization matters (say, through use of a theme or background), they should be mentioned. The setting doesn't need to be in the foreground; but its mere presence will help clarify how different parts of the game are interrelated so that customization is easier. The impact of choice of deity on a cleric's power list in contrast to say, a wizard's power list [I]could[/I] be abstractly defined, but it's likely to be misunderstood or at best just boring. Better to just give an example and let people change it as they wish. As an added bonus, if you just don't care too much about some part of the setting (very likely), you implicitly get to copy the default setting, rather than needing to specify something yourself. I do think that things like the Nentir Vale don't need to be so explicitly fleshed out - it's enough to mention the default setting when directly relevant to the material at hand. The setting would then be a tool merely to help the game designers keep the game consistent, and the players (including DM) would normally only read about the setting indirectly. [/QUOTE]

Verification