Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Von Ether" data-source="post: 2297078" data-attributes="member: 15582">This is what sort of confuses me about the issue. Many people who like "old school" modules say it's because the adventures are bare bones, you can easily plop the adventure in your plot or game world without much change and a minimum of fluff (i.e. give me stats and cruch and don't tell me a backstory or where to put the monsters.) Greyhawk is "old school" as well and has some of the same open ended/bare bones approach. With that in mind and the default names set to Greyhawk, every WotC book is tool kit for a Greyhawk game. We talking about a world where beholders, liches and drow "live" three doors down from each other, we aren't talking about a high level of "suspension for disbelief" on adding any other monsters or genericaly named PrCs from other books.So that invalidates the name drops for the PrCs all of the other WotC books like Exalted?I found this technique cool in the MM III and I admit that Greyhawk could have been included in that, then again it sort of circles back to my original question. For GW GMs who love the bare bones approach, give them the goods but let them decide the best way to use it.</blockquote>