Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Panamon Creel" data-source="post: 3976292" data-attributes="member: 58610">Ok guys.  I think we've had enough responses to this effect.  I think I could have figured this one out on my own.  Also, I've been playing rpgs for over twenty five years; so I'm probably somewhat creative and resourceful.  And yeah even if I had zero creativity, I could certainly slap some names on any random map.  But if I want to follow all the WOTC fluff and the official adventure path (and that is a big IF considering what I'm seeing from 4E these days), I'm willing to bet pretty soon my map would be unworkable.Also, I don't think anyone has responded to my prime arguments:*  Isn't 4E supposed to be marketed towards newbies- give them a simple map then! *  WOTC made the decision to saddle 4E with all this new fluff (some of which I do not care for very much - tiefling backstory, kender-halflings, no gnomes, the name eladrin).  I disagree with Rich Baker that the level of fluff is similar to the "Rod of Dwarven Lords" type fluff from 1E.  Most of the 1E Gygaxian names were simply evocative or minor backstories for items or creatures.  R&C is giving us creation stories for every race, detailed histories about kingdoms, many names of places, dictating where each race lives (still boggled over the halfling swamp bit), and making a very detailed implied setting (in my opinion).  Therefore, since it certainly appears that WOTC has chosen to try to spell out everything in the "implied setting", then they should give us a simple map.  Of course, it is probably all part of their grand marketing scheme to judge the market for a POL official setting on the internet in such debates like this and then release some gazeteer and map for $49.99 in 2009 or 2010.</blockquote>

Verification