Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 709069" data-attributes="member: 6777">Keep it!D&amp;D isn't generic; there are a lot of assumptions about the &quot;implied setting&quot; built into the core rules. These assumptions need a framework, and Greyhawk provides that framework. The setting has a rich history, yet can also be stripped down to a basic level to add &quot;just enough&quot; flavor to the core D&amp;D3e rules.In addition, having some sort of default setting makes it a little easier, imho, on people new to the game. They can take all of the aformentioned assumptions and apply them immediately to a campaign setting. Yet, the flavor of the setting as presented in the core books is mild enough that using a different setting is nearly effortless.However, I agree with a lot of people here that, if WotC is going to include the setting at all, there should, at the very least, be more overt support.(We all seem to be ignoring the RPGA, admittedly. I'm not particularly interested in the whole &quot;Living [blah]&quot; concept, myself, and don't see why one has to resort to that just to get more setting material.)A comprehensive campaign setting book, along the lines of the FRCS, would be a good start. AFAIC, such a book would serve as a sort of fourth core rulebook, essentially being a detailed demonstration of the application of the core rules to a setting.Why couldn't the default setting be FR? I'm sure it could, but here seems to be a lot more &quot;baggage&quot; involved with FR. GH is more &quot;straight&quot; D&amp;D, and thus serves as a better default in my estimation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 709069, member: 6777"] [b]Keep it![/b] D&D isn't generic; there are a lot of assumptions about the "implied setting" built into the core rules. These assumptions need a framework, and Greyhawk provides that framework. The setting has a rich history, yet can also be stripped down to a basic level to add "just enough" flavor to the core D&D3e rules. In addition, having some sort of default setting makes it a little easier, imho, on people new to the game. They can take all of the aformentioned assumptions and apply them immediately to a campaign setting. Yet, the flavor of the setting as presented in the core books is mild enough that using a different setting is nearly effortless. However, I agree with a lot of people here that, if WotC is going to include the setting at all, there should, at the very least, be more overt support. (We all seem to be ignoring the RPGA, admittedly. I'm not particularly interested in the whole "Living [blah]" concept, myself, and don't see why one has to resort to that just to get more setting material.) A comprehensive campaign setting book, along the lines of the FRCS, would be a good start. AFAIC, such a book would serve as a sort of fourth core rulebook, essentially being a detailed demonstration of the application of the core rules to a setting. Why couldn't the default setting be FR? I'm sure it could, but here seems to be a lot more "baggage" involved with FR. GH is more "straight" D&D, and thus serves as a better default in my estimation. [/QUOTE]

Verification