Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 2493650" data-attributes="member: 12324">I'm a huge fan of the original modules. Played them. Loved them. [RANT ON]Third edition's campaign setting completely turned me off. First, all the races available seemed half finished to me. Like using Savage Species, putting a LA on the abilities of a centaur and poof. Done. Done? Not satisfying me since I can do the same on my own (I should say, I'm almost allergic to PC races with starting hit dice and such. Playable at the table, certainly, but propose them as default choices in a setting? No). Most importantly, I felt like the authors let me down. I wanted to play Dragonlance. What I loved about DL was not the War of Souls. I had even no particular knowledge of the War of Souls (and still do not). The CS was not well organized/clear. I remember the Hawkmoon RPG (in its French edition): I could run a Hawkmoon game without actually read Moorcock (and of course, after running a few games I did). The DL campaign setting wanted to sell me the novels of the War of Souls, and if I didn't want them, the parts of the CS about the War of the Lance were ridiculously summarized and blurred. In the end, no focus, and no feeling of an achieved product but rather a collection of notes.Sure, you could tell me this or that sourcebook is GREAT, but I wanted to just have a playable setting in one volume, and I don't have that with the DLCS.Add to this what other people have said generally about settings with metaplots, that you can apply to Middle-earth or high-level FR (when wanting to absolutely respect the setting as written, which I don't), or countless other settings out there. It just turned me off big time.[RANT OFF]</blockquote>

Verification