Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 708412" data-attributes="member: 3854">This attitude that Greyhawk is either just lip service or not supported by WotC as the default D&amp;D world just blows me over. How can anyone possibly have this opinion? Really, it just boggles my mind.ALL the proper names in the core rulebooks and splat books (and many other &quot;world-generic&quot; books) are from WoG. All the &quot;named&quot; spells of the PHB are named after WoG wizards. All the gods in the PHB are WoG gods. Much of the flavor text refers to WoG. Many of the splat book prestige classes are from WoG (Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom, etc.). The flavor text in the splat books refers to WoG.How in the world can this not be considered &quot;support&quot; for WoG? One of the best things WotC has done for WoG with bringing it back as the default setting for D&amp;D is that they haven't gone into extreme detail with it like they have always done with Forgotten Realms. I do not want the Kingdom of Furyondy detailed down to every village and road. I want to make WoG my own campaign setting, using the feel given in the core books. Every detail given in an official product restricts my wiggle room in the campaign world.I feel very strongly that the current style of vague and broad references to WoG in the core books is perfect for any DM and players who want to use it as their campaign setting. Any more detail would cramp a DM's style and tie down too many strings that a DM could otherwise use for building the world and plots to his own liking.WotC's use of WoG as the default setting, supported in an vague manner, is perfect for the game and any WoG campaign. To play a campaign in WoG, all you need is the three core books (and a map).Quasqueton</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quasqueton, post: 708412, member: 3854"] This attitude that Greyhawk is either just lip service or not supported by WotC as the default D&D world just blows me over. How can anyone possibly have this opinion? Really, it just boggles my mind. [b]ALL[/b] the proper names in the core rulebooks and splat books (and many other "world-generic" books) are from WoG. All the "named" spells of the PHB are named after WoG wizards. All the gods in the PHB are WoG gods. Much of the flavor text refers to WoG. Many of the splat book prestige classes are from WoG (Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom, etc.). The flavor text in the splat books refers to WoG. How in the world can this not be considered "support" for WoG? One of the best things WotC has done for WoG with bringing it back as the default setting for D&D is that they haven't gone into extreme detail with it like they have always done with Forgotten Realms. I do not want the Kingdom of Furyondy detailed down to every village and road. I want to make WoG my own campaign setting, using the feel given in the core books. Every detail given in an official product restricts my wiggle room in the campaign world. I feel very strongly that the current style of vague and broad references to WoG in the core books is perfect for any DM and players who want to use it as their campaign setting. Any more detail would cramp a DM's style and tie down too many strings that a DM could otherwise use for building the world and plots to his own liking. WotC's use of WoG as the default setting, supported in an vague manner, is perfect for the game and any WoG campaign. To play a campaign in WoG, all you need is the three core books (and a map). Quasqueton [/QUOTE]

Verification