Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 1934424" data-attributes="member: 22882">This runs totally contrary to my own experience.&nbsp; I have tons of RPG books and acquire more all the time, and I get many good ideas from them.&nbsp; Many years have passed since the last time I actually GMed a campaign setting (Spelljammer), but I still regularly buy Realms, Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, Rokugan, Dragonlance and Arcana Unearthed setting-specific material, and sometimes pick up others.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because there's some very cool stuff in all of that material, every bit as much as in a setting-neutral book or the much-vaunted core rules.I don't like making up new mechanics.&nbsp; It's boring and time consuming to do reasonably well.&nbsp; Most of the mechanics out there are indeed done to the standards I require, which are admittedly lenient.&nbsp; I much prefer to boil away the flavor from a Realms PrC (for example, Red Wizard) and either make it available as a mechanical representation of a character concept or attach new flavor to it.&nbsp; Flavor is easy and quick to do reasonably well, easy and not all that time consuming to do extremely well.Would I play in an established setting?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; I play in an Iron Kingdoms game right now.Would I GM in an established setting?&nbsp; I'd GM Spelljammer if there were a 3.x conversion, and possibly do said conversion myself if I knew an interested group of players.&nbsp; I'd GM a Final Fantasy licensed campaign if one were released - I do it now as a homebrew.&nbsp; I might GM Iron Kingdoms or Dragonlance, but probably not.Would I find my creativity stifled by not having an established setting's crunch, if not some of its fluff?&nbsp; Probably.&nbsp; Given time I could fill all the crunch voids and come up with pure homebrew fluff or fluff based off some other existing world.&nbsp; But it's much easier and more enjoyable for me to pick through existing books.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 1934424, member: 22882"] This runs totally contrary to my own experience. I have tons of RPG books and acquire more all the time, and I get many good ideas from them. Many years have passed since the last time I actually GMed a campaign setting (Spelljammer), but I still regularly buy Realms, Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, Rokugan, Dragonlance and Arcana Unearthed setting-specific material, and sometimes pick up others. Why? Because there's some very cool stuff in all of that material, every bit as much as in a setting-neutral book or the much-vaunted core rules. I don't like making up new mechanics. It's boring and time consuming to do reasonably well. Most of the mechanics out there are indeed done to the standards I require, which are admittedly lenient. I much prefer to boil away the flavor from a Realms PrC (for example, Red Wizard) and either make it available as a mechanical representation of a character concept or attach new flavor to it. Flavor is easy and quick to do reasonably well, easy and not all that time consuming to do extremely well. Would I play in an established setting? Sure. I play in an Iron Kingdoms game right now. Would I GM in an established setting? I'd GM Spelljammer if there were a 3.x conversion, and possibly do said conversion myself if I knew an interested group of players. I'd GM a [I]Final Fantasy[/I] licensed campaign if one were released - I do it now as a homebrew. I might GM Iron Kingdoms or Dragonlance, but probably not. Would I find my creativity stifled by not having an established setting's crunch, if not some of its fluff? Probably. Given time I could fill all the crunch voids and come up with pure homebrew fluff or fluff based off some other existing world. But it's much easier and more enjoyable for me to pick through existing books. [/QUOTE]

Verification