Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6396925" data-attributes="member: 22779">Heh.&nbsp; Thanks for that.But, again, I would like to make it absolutely clear what my objection is.&nbsp; It's not necessarily The Planes, but rather the intrusion of too much setting in the core books.&nbsp; I brought up the Kobold entry some time ago as another example where I think they cross the line from resource to setting canon.&nbsp; Another would be the Salamander entry where it states quite clearly that salamanders are slaves to Efreeti.&nbsp; Again, that's a pretty strong setting element because they also mention the City of Brass in there and a number of other details.&nbsp; In other words, they are tying things together in a unified whole.There's a thread on the forum right now <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365827-Monster-Relationships" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365827-Monster-Relationships</a> talking about mapping out all the explicit relationships detailed in the Monster Manual.&nbsp; I admit, I'm leery of this kind of thing because it becomes a step on the way to creating a unified setting that can overtake large swaths of the game.&nbsp; In the same way that the planes detailed in the 1e PHB became The Planes setting with 30 years of canon and a setting in its own right.I really don't see D&amp;D as a game with a single setting.&nbsp; It never has been.&nbsp; It's not a generic game, true, but, it's never been tightly tied to a single setting either.&nbsp; I mean, even 1e, which probably is the most closely knit game to Greyhawk saw the birth of Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance under the same system.&nbsp; 4e, which is also tightly wound around a single setting concept, still saw a fair bit of diversity ranging from Gamma World to Nentir Vale to En World's own Zeitgeist and Santiago.&nbsp; I believe that 5e will not become too tightly wound around a single vision setting.&nbsp; I don't think they'll go that far.&nbsp; But, it does alarm me to a degree that they look like they're walking down that path.&nbsp; If I wanted a D&amp;D tied to a single setting, I'd play Pathfinder.&nbsp; That's one of the many places Pathfinder really excels.&nbsp; But, I don't want 5e to go down that road.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6396925, member: 22779"] Heh. Thanks for that. But, again, I would like to make it absolutely clear what my objection is. It's not necessarily The Planes, but rather the intrusion of too much setting in the core books. I brought up the Kobold entry some time ago as another example where I think they cross the line from resource to setting canon. Another would be the Salamander entry where it states quite clearly that salamanders are slaves to Efreeti. Again, that's a pretty strong setting element because they also mention the City of Brass in there and a number of other details. In other words, they are tying things together in a unified whole. There's a thread on the forum right now [url]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365827-Monster-Relationships[/url] talking about mapping out all the explicit relationships detailed in the Monster Manual. I admit, I'm leery of this kind of thing because it becomes a step on the way to creating a unified setting that can overtake large swaths of the game. In the same way that the planes detailed in the 1e PHB became The Planes setting with 30 years of canon and a setting in its own right. I really don't see D&D as a game with a single setting. It never has been. It's not a generic game, true, but, it's never been tightly tied to a single setting either. I mean, even 1e, which probably is the most closely knit game to Greyhawk saw the birth of Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance under the same system. 4e, which is also tightly wound around a single setting concept, still saw a fair bit of diversity ranging from Gamma World to Nentir Vale to En World's own Zeitgeist and Santiago. I believe that 5e will not become too tightly wound around a single vision setting. I don't think they'll go that far. But, it does alarm me to a degree that they look like they're walking down that path. If I wanted a D&D tied to a single setting, I'd play Pathfinder. That's one of the many places Pathfinder really excels. But, I don't want 5e to go down that road. [/QUOTE]

Verification