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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 3411070" data-attributes="member: 37579">This post kept nagging at me. The argument, summarized, is that DMs who use the setting now have too much information and have to either ignore it or their campaigns because "lazy DMs" can't make stuff up.But if the DM is not lazy then why is he using a published campaign setting instead of a homebrew, even  thought "up on the fly as needed"? The main problem is if the setting has few details there is NO choice. You have to make stuff up. So if you are a "lazy DM" (read: rushed, distracted, etc) even though you're paying for the world you still need to invest a large amount of creative energy and time into background. But if the world is detailed (or has sections of detail in-between the blank patches) you can choose to use as much or as little as you want. And, as someone who has made his share of homebrews, in addition to reading published settings, I know there's also an brainstorming effect. Other writers will ALWAYS think of ideas that would never, ever have occurred to you. These ideas are not always good but can start you thinking in different directions. Reading through this thread, as a relative newcomer to Greyhawk and the argument, much of the dislike seems to boil down to change=bad. Most of the posters here who hate GW and FtA seem to be old school players (often retired from D&D:\ ). The two updates seem to be receiving the condensed, concentrated vitriol of the setting's change, the change of what people want in a published world, a change in the game and industry, etc. There's probably some residual feelings of the edition changes (OD&D to 1st AD&D to 2nd AD&D) mixed in there as well, further tainting memories and opinions. Meanwhile, most of the people who have admitting to like one or both of the accessories, were newcomers to the setting.</blockquote>

Verification