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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4170809" data-attributes="member: 22779">You're right of course.But, what you would come up with is a whole pile of homebrews that use Greyhawk elements all over the place - races, magic, proper nouns, cosmology, monsters, monster cultures (after all, who was the demon lord of gnolls?  drow?) etc.  Yes, it's not a complete campaign setting.  But, then again, it's a long ways there.  You could have a setting that uses many of these elements, which the players already are familiar with because they've read the Player's Handbook, and half the work is done for you.Sure, you still have to make your adventures, of course.  I'm certainly not suggesting that the DMG should limit that.  But, now when I come up with a setting for my campaign of "Hunting Dragons" all I have to do is focus on that campaign.  I don't have to piss about trying to figure out where halflings came from, or who is the god of dwarves.  I have a shared history, that I can use with my campaign and any player who is familiar with 4e will be familiar with my setting.The same way that any Basic/Expert player would be familiar with Mystara or 1e player would be familiar with Greyhawk.  Really, the only thing missing from 1e is the map.  Pretty much everything else is there.  I played 1e back in the day.  Played most of those modules too, just like, I think, a very large number of 1e players.  Verbobonc, Homlet, Orlane, the Duchy of Geoff, were all common names around our table, even before we bought the Greyhawk boxed set.I fail to see how a shared setting is a bad thing for D&D.  Why are players so insistent that everyone who plays must be forced to create their own world, or go out and buy more books?</blockquote>

Verification