Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Knightfall" data-source="post: 2790565" data-attributes="member: 2012">If a book is designed to be a campaign setting first and foremost then there should definitely be more thought given to the setting than to the rules. The best example of this I can think of is Ryan Smalley's Valus fantasy role-playing world sourcebook published by Different World Publications. (The book is the best setting book I've seen that doesn't add a ton of new rules to the d20 System without giving up the ability to be unique.)However, many d20 settings are designed with the one core book philosophy, and then create add-on books for more crunchy material. In such cases, a good balance between setting and rules is a must. The best example of this I can think of is Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. (The main book is very well balanced between rules and the setting material, which is needed as the setting doesn't eaxctly follow the rules of the PHB, DMG, and MM.)As for &quot;rules first&quot; supplements, such books rarely need to have any setting material, unless the book is designed for a specific d20 System setting (i.e. Arcana Evolved). Personally, I tend to stay away from such books unless I really like the setting. Thus, Blackmoor sourcebooks have interest to me, while Arcana Evolved sourcebooks don't. This is simply preference.As for Crothian's concern regarding Etherscope, I would hope it falls into the same category as Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. Considering its a Goodman Games campaign setting, I'm sure it falls into that category.Cheers!KF72===========================As you can tell from my post, I made this same mistake. I guess I should have voted &quot;it doesn't matter&quot;. I guess I didn't read his post carefully enough. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Knightfall, post: 2790565, member: 2012"] If a book is designed to be a campaign setting first and foremost then there should definitely be more thought given to the setting than to the rules. The best example of this I can think of is Ryan Smalley's Valus fantasy role-playing world sourcebook published by Different World Publications. (The book is the best setting book I've seen that doesn't add a ton of new rules to the d20 System without giving up the ability to be unique.) However, many d20 settings are designed with the one core book philosophy, and then create add-on books for more crunchy material. In such cases, a good balance between setting and rules is a must. The best example of this I can think of is Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. (The main book is very well balanced between rules and the setting material, which is needed as the setting doesn't eaxctly follow the rules of the PHB, DMG, and MM.) As for "rules first" supplements, such books rarely need to have any setting material, unless the book is designed for a specific d20 System setting (i.e. Arcana Evolved). Personally, I tend to stay away from such books unless I really like the setting. Thus, Blackmoor sourcebooks have interest to me, while Arcana Evolved sourcebooks don't. This is simply preference. As for Crothian's concern regarding Etherscope, I would hope it falls into the same category as Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. Considering its a Goodman Games campaign setting, I'm sure it falls into that category. Cheers! KF72 =========================== As you can tell from my post, I made this same mistake. I guess I should have voted "it doesn't matter". I guess I didn't read his post carefully enough. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification