Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4169088" data-attributes="member: 22779">TwinB - I've overstated my case, as usual.I don't think world building is bad.&nbsp; I think it's bad for me, but, in and of itself it's fine.&nbsp; If you want to do that, go right ahead, knock your socks off.&nbsp; But, don't force me to do it.I want the core rules to have enough of a setting that I can sit down and start writing adventures set within that setting from day one.&nbsp; That means I need a cosmology, a rough outline of the lands, demographics (maybe) and some history.&nbsp; There, that's all I need.&nbsp; Gimme a town to start in too?&nbsp; Fantastic.Take 3e for a second.&nbsp; 3e had an implied setting - Greyhawk (I think we can all agree on that).&nbsp; But, it stripped out all of the Greyhawk flavor and pretty much only left a few proper nouns.&nbsp; So, it was left to us to create pretty much everything needed to run a game - history, politics, etc.But, on the mechanics side of the fence, the world of 3e was extremely well detailed.&nbsp; Everything followed - the CR system was based on Wealth by Level.&nbsp; Wealth by Level assumed standard demographics.&nbsp; The demographics assumed a certain type of setting (namely Eurocentric), etc. etc.&nbsp; So, when I did finally want to start a campaign, I ran into this wall of mechanics that constrained what kind of setting I was going to create.Well, if they're going to go that far and give me the complete mechanical breakdown of the setting, howzabout they go the three steps further and give me the flavour too?&nbsp; Instead of forcing me to come up with all of that on my own and then having to double check it against the mechanics, just give me the damn setting already.For those of you who want to create your own, more power to you.&nbsp; Great, fantastic.&nbsp; But, and no one seems to be able to answer this, why do you have to do less work so I have to do more?&nbsp; Stripping out the flavour text is something you're going to do anyway to fit whatever element into your campaign, so, give me the flavour that fits with the mechanics and we're both happy.It's like Lizard claiming that the Great Wheel isn't a Greyhawk convention, but a D&amp;D one just because he's ported it into his homebrew.&nbsp; Sorry, doesn't work.&nbsp; The Great Wheel cosmology was created FOR GREYHAWK and then became the standard for D&amp;D.&nbsp; That you or anyone else ported it into your homebrew doesn't change that fact.&nbsp; Again, I would never stand in the way of anyone who wants to create their own setting.&nbsp; But, why should I then be forced to do it as well, when I don't want to, just so the world builders can have an easier time of it?&nbsp; The existence of a core setting didn't stop people from homebrewing the hell out of 1e or Basic D&amp;D, so I'm failing to see why it would stop you now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4169088, member: 22779"] TwinB - I've overstated my case, as usual. I don't think world building is bad. I think it's bad for me, but, in and of itself it's fine. If you want to do that, go right ahead, knock your socks off. But, don't force me to do it. I want the core rules to have enough of a setting that I can sit down and start writing adventures set within that setting from day one. That means I need a cosmology, a rough outline of the lands, demographics (maybe) and some history. There, that's all I need. Gimme a town to start in too? Fantastic. Take 3e for a second. 3e had an implied setting - Greyhawk (I think we can all agree on that). But, it stripped out all of the Greyhawk flavor and pretty much only left a few proper nouns. So, it was left to us to create pretty much everything needed to run a game - history, politics, etc. But, on the mechanics side of the fence, the world of 3e was extremely well detailed. Everything followed - the CR system was based on Wealth by Level. Wealth by Level assumed standard demographics. The demographics assumed a certain type of setting (namely Eurocentric), etc. etc. So, when I did finally want to start a campaign, I ran into this wall of mechanics that constrained what kind of setting I was going to create. Well, if they're going to go that far and give me the complete mechanical breakdown of the setting, howzabout they go the three steps further and give me the flavour too? Instead of forcing me to come up with all of that on my own and then having to double check it against the mechanics, just give me the damn setting already. For those of you who want to create your own, more power to you. Great, fantastic. But, and no one seems to be able to answer this, why do you have to do less work so I have to do more? Stripping out the flavour text is something you're going to do anyway to fit whatever element into your campaign, so, give me the flavour that fits with the mechanics and we're both happy. It's like Lizard claiming that the Great Wheel isn't a Greyhawk convention, but a D&D one just because he's ported it into his homebrew. Sorry, doesn't work. The Great Wheel cosmology was created FOR GREYHAWK and then became the standard for D&D. That you or anyone else ported it into your homebrew doesn't change that fact. Again, I would never stand in the way of anyone who wants to create their own setting. But, why should I then be forced to do it as well, when I don't want to, just so the world builders can have an easier time of it? The existence of a core setting didn't stop people from homebrewing the hell out of 1e or Basic D&D, so I'm failing to see why it would stop you now. [/QUOTE]

Verification