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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5425726" data-attributes="member: 22779">The issue, I suppose, with including setting based rules - overland travel, what cities look like, heck the whole "shopping for magic items" thing in 3e - is that you have to make a lot of assumptions about someone else's setting.  Particularly if the setting based rules have any impact on adventure design, which, in my mind, they inevitably will.I can see the point of removing almost all setting based material from the core books.  Savage Worlds does this rather well.  You'll find almost no setting stuff in the Savage Worlds core book, other than really, really generic "pulp" stuff like.  SW does what Coldwyn suggests and moves 99% of the setting material into the setting booksGURPS does the same thing as well.  The basic GURPS book (at least from my rather fuzzy memory) doesn't really include a whole lot of specifics on setting design.  That's left to supplements.At the end of the day, I suppose it depends on whether you see D&D as a generic fantasy game vehicle or a rather specific one strongly based on a specific branch of genre fiction.  I think the problem becomes that you can make arguements for D&D in any edition that it could go either way. Taking 3e for example, all you have to do is look at the SRD to see D&D without setting material.  The SRD strips out pretty much all the flavour (such as it is) from the books.  And, I think there are a number of 3e players who stick to the SRD as their base book, so, it certainly can be done.There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.</blockquote>

Verification