JoeGKushner
Adventurer
kroh said:Although I see your point with the novel, what the statless game book provides are the motivations for NPC's (for which drag and drop NPC stats can usually be found in most good RPG systems), backdrops for more than just a story element in a novel, and juicy tidbits for GM's that might not have seen such elements in a story.
How about the various 'guides to x"? I've seen Dragonriders of Pern, Shanarra, Wheel of Time, and other ficiton lines with resoruce books. Heck, the DK line of books and Star Wars have done more for my campaign than WoTC or WEG.
kroh said:That is a good reason to have the rules companions to the settings. Yes the GM is the processor, but much like the video game industry, even though the game is the same whether you play it on Wii, Xbox360, or PC, some of the code (rules) that the platforms use to project it on screen is different. With the proposed Rules Companions, the GM doesn't have to do any leg workThe setting is statted out for each set of rules and the leg work is just setting up the adventures (depending on your GM style).
Not always true. Some games have exlusive content. Some are simply exclusive. Some are rereleased latter. Rules companions are good but now it's an extra cost. Is it a flat cost that you get one rules companion? Do you have to subscribe?
kroh said:Very true, but this is not about the crunchy splat books, but a fluffy setting book. If you are using the setting with a system that is heavy on class oriented , feat driven splatter, and the players want to use that with the setting... shouldn't the GM be able to plug that right in? If your player wants to fit in his 3/4-drow/warforge/dragon - soulknife/necromancer/French maid with the kung fu grip and you have the d200 rules companion...where's the harm?
Disagree. Mixing this and that is usually only good for a generic setting and in such a case, perfect for a 'fluff' book as it's assumptions probably stretch back to Tolkien. On the other hand, if it's a low magic setting, that's going to pretty much knock out the warforged part and the dragon and unless it's Norse based, the dark elf no? Setting should be the starting boundries of "what is" not "what can the players drag in." Settings should act as a guide to what's standard and normal and provide room for exceptions but not make the exceptions the norm. If the exceptions become the norm, there's no point in having ANY campaign setting as it's all the same.
kroh said:Good point. I was more speaking of games I was in where the players would argue with the GM because he had changed cannon material ( I could care less) or we as the players wanted to do something that would vastly throw the metaplot out of whack. Vastly defined settings made for argue fests...but this was solely my experience and why I personally do not buy overwritten settings.
I can agree that arguing with such players such but then I have to ask them, "What's your vested interest if Drizzt is alive?" to get to the crux of the matter.
kroh said:Thanks for the rebuttal JoeGKushner! I love a different point of view and yours was well written. Although I will NOT be buying forgotten realms any time soon (I have all of the original release, once is enough) I have been following the Eberron setting (guilty pleasure) as one of my standard purchases and it has been fun.
Have Fun Gaming!
Regards,
Walt
You ain't lying about the FR! I've got about three Waterdeep books (my favorite being the box set City of Splendors.)