Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 9321773" data-attributes="member: 58172">The core rules of 5e 2024 must be useful for many different kinds of settings. Even modern and scifi, even historical medieval realism.It is a dilemma. The rules need a setting flavor to make sense of the mechanics. But this setting flavor needs to be suggestive and flexible, rather than baked-in and imagination-killing.Where possible, descriptions of core classes and core spells must avoid setting assumptions. As a rule of thumb, if the description of the core class, or any other mechanic, can make sense for a game in any of Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dark Sun, then it is probably suitable for core rules generally. Bonus points if it can also make sense for a modern setting in a quasi-realworld today.It is each setting guide that goes into detail about a specific setting.The core rules need to be setting-neutral. But, there can be places that privilege the FR (Forgotten Realms) setting as the default setting. I prefer homebrew settings. I have mixed feelings about using FR as a default. The use of FR needs to be a light touch. Especially the Cleric class needs to be openended so reallife players from various religious cultures can feel comfortable.Because the rules intend for the players to invent their own backgrounds − their narrative, selection of skills, tool, and language, and choice of feat − it is ok to make the default examples of backgrounds be highly specific to Forgotten Realms. The &quot;Miner&quot; background is more specifically the a Miner of Rift of the Gold Dwarves in South Faerun. The &quot;Alchemist&quot; is an Avariel Elf glassteel producer. And so on. These examples bring the Forgotten Realms to life, but the players are still free to do whatever one wants for ones own character concept.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 9321773, member: 58172"] The core rules of 5e 2024 must be useful for many different kinds of settings. Even modern and scifi, even historical medieval realism. It is a dilemma. The rules need a setting flavor to make sense of the mechanics. But this setting flavor needs to be suggestive and flexible, rather than baked-in and imagination-killing. Where possible, descriptions of core classes and core spells must avoid setting assumptions. As a rule of thumb, if the description of the core class, or any other mechanic, can make sense for a game in any of Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dark Sun, then it is probably suitable for core rules generally. Bonus points if it can also make sense for a modern setting in a quasi-realworld today. It is each setting guide that goes into detail about a specific setting. The core rules need to be setting-neutral. But, there can be places that privilege the FR (Forgotten Realms) setting as the default setting. I prefer homebrew settings. I have mixed feelings about using FR as a default. The use of FR needs to be a light touch. Especially the Cleric class needs to be openended so reallife players from various religious cultures can feel comfortable. Because the rules intend for the players to invent their own backgrounds − their narrative, selection of skills, tool, and language, and choice of feat − it is ok to make the default examples of backgrounds be highly specific to Forgotten Realms. The "Miner" background is more specifically the a Miner of Rift of the Gold Dwarves in South Faerun. The "Alchemist" is an Avariel Elf glassteel producer. And so on. These examples bring the Forgotten Realms to life, but the players are still free to do whatever one wants for ones own character concept. [/QUOTE]

Verification