Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Micah Sweet" data-source="post: 9345213" data-attributes="member: 6747251">Oh no, I don't care about Greyhawk personally at all.  I just support the Guild's ability to get hands and minds other than WotC's on the content.I also think you are minimizing the rules changes and additions present in many D&D settings (although not Greyhawk admittedly).  Many of them have large bestiaries of unique monsters, for example.  And then there's stuff like ships in Spelljammer, the moons in Dragonlance, dark powers and domain mechanics in Ravenloft, portals and planar effects in Planescape, dynastic abilities in Birthright, and of course psionics in Dark Sun and elsewhere.On the player side, most if not all of the settings referenced above also would have new heritage, class/subclass, feat, equipment, and spell options.  That's a lot of material to just tell folks they can and should make up themselves.Now I agree that WotC can't be trusted to do a good job with setting lore (boy howdy do I agree), with the occasional exception like the decent job they did with Planescape.  But rules update are still potentially valuable, and there are a lot of rules to update.Of course, my preference is that they pass off all of it to the Guild.  That material still tends to be colored by WotC 5e's version to some degree, but it's better than WotC doing all of it.</blockquote>