Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dyir" data-source="post: 5402723" data-attributes="member: 13293">What I've never understood about the changes made to the 4e version of FR is why Wizards just didn't create a new campaign setting, rather than radically altering the FR.  If you were someone that enjoyed the level of detail and the involved NPCs, why couldn't they have just left the FR alone for them.  Given the limited amount of detail that the FR books provided, would it have been that difficult to make a new campaign setting with the same degree of detail?  It seems to me that way you could get the best of both worlds: those players that prefer limited detail and “points of light” as the emphasis would have this new setting, and those players that liked the greater detail would have the older FR.And if you point out that they did it because the mechanics didn't match, I cry shenanigans.  When they converted from 2E to 3E, there was no “world changing event:” stuff that didn't match simply had always been that way.  Drizzt had always been a multiclassed Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger, the Simbul had always been a Sorcerer, and so forth.  And I thought that was a pretty simple and easy way to handle it, without obliterating everything that had come before.  Surely the same could have been done for 4E, especially given it's new philosophy that the game rules are more of an abstraction of the game world, rather than a physics engine.</blockquote>