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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 3317935" data-attributes="member: 10201">Oh, from a marketing standpoint, i agree--the more generic, the less it sells. Which is why i've been waiting so long for something like the new Freeport. I'm just hoping it's because people overlook generic stuff, not because there's an active market hostility to it. (Because if it's the former, than something moderately prominent like Freeport may awaken people to the possibility, while if it's the latter, it'll just mean Freeport does poorly, too.)As to assumptions, you maybe want to reread them. Biggest problem incorporating CityBooks into "standard" D&D settings? The CityBooks had a bigger variety, and greater incidence of non-humans. As for the level of magic--it was, if anything, more ubiquitous than in standard D&D, if of generally lower power. Lots of characters with minor magical abilities (that there really was no by-the-book way to do in those days). Like the orcish tattoo artists. And there was certainly more planar travel in the CityBooks settings than i encountered in the D&D settings of the day. Like an inn that wandered the planes.Yes, tehre are always setting assumptions. But, really, they were all over the map. Some of the individual establishments were much more magical than the D&D rules assumptions, others were much less. Likewise for other general setting assumptions (like incidence of non-humans). With lots of authors, and lots of ideas, i never really got a consistent set of setting assumptions. And some of the books were, overall, considerably lower or higher fantasy than others, too. Only place they seemed consistently in one direction, was fewer magic items than D&D assumed. But that's trivially adjusted (unlike the degree of inherent magical ability, or races of NPCs, frex)--just give the NPCs some magic items.</blockquote>

Verification