Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6234289" data-attributes="member: 78752">BOXED.&nbsp; SET.&nbsp;Again, I do not disagree with you, but I think an /absolute horde/ of people would.There's probably some truth in that.&nbsp; Other than GURPS and a few other definitively generic systems, D&amp;D is the only game that doesn't.No doubt.&nbsp; It might help you understand my perspective if I tell you I am not one of those people.No, Nerath's treatment in the D&amp;D4 material is anemic, but still clearly follows the D&amp;D3 model of full core setting development.&nbsp; As you pointed out, the problem was that Wizards did not commit.&nbsp; Others have stated that they want &quot;homebrew&quot; to be the core setting of D&amp;D5, but I tend to agree with you: that is what D&amp;D4 did wrong.&nbsp; The core setting of D&amp;D4 was not Nerath, it was &quot;your setting,&quot; and the Nerath stuff never made the jump from inspirational filler to gazetteer.The Paizo settings in Polyhedron ten years ago were sort of the opposite.&nbsp; Gazetteer detail, but with no attempt made to cover /everything/.An example:If Wizards wanted to support multiple settings in D&amp;D5, maybe they start with an appropriately priced 80-page book updating JUST Waterdeep, or the Dales.&nbsp; Good detail, all new stuff.&nbsp; Lots of what, who, and why.&nbsp; Adventure hooks.&nbsp; Reference the old material.Then they follow up with a similar book updating the City of Greyhawk.&nbsp; Then Abanasinia.&nbsp; Then Cormyr.&nbsp; Then a big premium collector's edition boxed set for Sigil (of course).&nbsp; Then Solamnia.I mean, I'm only just now realizing this, but isn't that still Paizo's model, essentially?&nbsp; I don't collect Golarion books, but it seems like the vast majority of the setting material for Pathfinder is not in a big hardbound book entitled GOLARION: THE PATHFINDER CAMPAIGN SETTING.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 6234289, member: 78752"] BOXED. SET. Again, I do not disagree with you, but I think an /absolute horde/ of people would. There's probably some truth in that. Other than GURPS and a few other definitively generic systems, D&D is the only game that doesn't. No doubt. It might help you understand my perspective if I tell you I am not one of those people. No, Nerath's treatment in the D&D4 material is anemic, but still clearly follows the D&D3 model of full core setting development. As you pointed out, the problem was that Wizards did not commit. Others have stated that they want "homebrew" to be the core setting of D&D5, but I tend to agree with you: that is what D&D4 did wrong. The core setting of D&D4 was not Nerath, it was "your setting," and the Nerath stuff never made the jump from inspirational filler to gazetteer. The Paizo settings in Polyhedron ten years ago were sort of the opposite. Gazetteer detail, but with no attempt made to cover /everything/. An example: If Wizards wanted to support multiple settings in D&D5, maybe they start with an appropriately priced 80-page book updating JUST Waterdeep, or the Dales. Good detail, all new stuff. Lots of what, who, and why. Adventure hooks. Reference the old material. Then they follow up with a similar book updating the City of Greyhawk. Then Abanasinia. Then Cormyr. Then a big premium collector's edition boxed set for Sigil (of course). Then Solamnia. I mean, I'm only just now realizing this, but isn't that still Paizo's model, essentially? I don't collect Golarion books, but it seems like the vast majority of the setting material for Pathfinder is not in a big hardbound book entitled [I]GOLARION: THE PATHFINDER CAMPAIGN SETTING[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification