Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 6995348" data-attributes="member: 19857">I think this is exactly right.&nbsp; They tried to do it with Greyhawk in 3rd edition and got a lot of pushback because &quot;Greyhawk isn't generic/Why are you ruining Greyhawk?&quot;&nbsp; So then with 4e they figured &quot;let's just make a new 'default setting' where everything can be put&quot; and people screamed &quot;Why are you stealing all of the special things out of Greyhawk to stick them here?&quot;&nbsp; There's definitely a mismatch between how fans of Greyhawk see materials like Against the Giants, Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, The slavers series, etc. and how a lot of other people actually used these adventures in practice.&nbsp; Which means that no matter what Wizards does they're going to irritate someone.&nbsp; (I know that I don't consider any of these things to be Greyhawk specific even though they're all set in Greyhawk in the way that I think of a lot of Realms adventures as &quot;Realms specific&quot;.&nbsp; Because when I first ran all of them back in my formative days they weren't run in Greyhawk but instead in the Known World.&nbsp; The Temple of Elemental Evil is as much a Known World element to me as it is a Greyhawk one because that's where I experienced it.)The OP here is basically having the same reaction to 5e's treatment of the Realms that a number of 3e Greyhawk fans had, so I sympathize.&nbsp; The difference is that it's unlikely that the Realms will be dropped as the default setting the way that Greyhawk basically was after the first few years of 3rd edition because the Realms are way too popular and the books sell too well and the Realms is more tightly integrated with the publishing plans for this edition than Greyhawk was for 3e.&nbsp; (I liked the Nentir Vale setting quite a bit and continue to use it.&nbsp; It was nice to have a setting without a lot of detail surrounding it as it gave us a lot of space to just make stuff up.&nbsp; Sure you can do that in the Realms or Greyhawk or Mystara but there's always a niggling idea that you maybe should be checking to see if there's already a villain who can fill this role or a treasure that can fill that role or whatever.&nbsp; Having less detail means no nagging doubts at all as there's really nothing but the campaign notes to look things up in.&nbsp; It also seems to free up my players to make more setting suggestions when there's less detail - I think either because they feel that they can be more helpful when they're contributing to a basically empty slate or there's less fear about having to do &quot;homework&quot; to read up enough on the setting to participate in providing setting details.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 6995348, member: 19857"] I think this is exactly right. They tried to do it with Greyhawk in 3rd edition and got a lot of pushback because "Greyhawk isn't generic/Why are you ruining Greyhawk?" So then with 4e they figured "let's just make a new 'default setting' where everything can be put" and people screamed "Why are you stealing all of the special things out of Greyhawk to stick them here?" There's definitely a mismatch between how fans of Greyhawk see materials like Against the Giants, Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, The slavers series, etc. and how a lot of other people actually used these adventures in practice. Which means that no matter what Wizards does they're going to irritate someone. (I know that I don't consider any of these things to be Greyhawk specific even though they're all set in Greyhawk in the way that I think of a lot of Realms adventures as "Realms specific". Because when I first ran all of them back in my formative days they weren't run in Greyhawk but instead in the Known World. The Temple of Elemental Evil is as much a Known World element to me as it is a Greyhawk one because that's where I experienced it.) The OP here is basically having the same reaction to 5e's treatment of the Realms that a number of 3e Greyhawk fans had, so I sympathize. The difference is that it's unlikely that the Realms will be dropped as the default setting the way that Greyhawk basically was after the first few years of 3rd edition because the Realms are way too popular and the books sell too well and the Realms is more tightly integrated with the publishing plans for this edition than Greyhawk was for 3e. (I liked the Nentir Vale setting quite a bit and continue to use it. It was nice to have a setting without a lot of detail surrounding it as it gave us a lot of space to just make stuff up. Sure you can do that in the Realms or Greyhawk or Mystara but there's always a niggling idea that you maybe should be checking to see if there's already a villain who can fill this role or a treasure that can fill that role or whatever. Having less detail means no nagging doubts at all as there's really nothing but the campaign notes to look things up in. It also seems to free up my players to make more setting suggestions when there's less detail - I think either because they feel that they can be more helpful when they're contributing to a basically empty slate or there's less fear about having to do "homework" to read up enough on the setting to participate in providing setting details.) [/QUOTE]

Verification