Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery
After all, you mention that D&D's lack of setting material detracts from its utility as a "role-playing game."
|
I expect you're referring to a previous poster, so you might want to check the backscroll. If you're not, don't put words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery
The same is true for D&D. Want setting details? Wait for the world books. It is a form of generic fantasy.
|
Which is another way of saying:
Quote:
|
I expect that, like 3.X, there will be racial, faith, and world sourcebooks to fill in the blanks in the future.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery
That having been said, I have been running a very role-playing intensive campaign for months now. I simply took the references made in the core books (Arkhosia, Nerath, Bael Turath) and wove my own stories around them. I asked myself, "how did the points of light setting emerge? Was there a war? A cataclysm?" Following that line of thought, I imagined a treaty city, newly built by the civilized races in the wake of a brutal war which nearly wiped them all out. Its a bit "Babylon V" meets "City of Lies," with the various ambassadors of the races living and working there to better their species position while simultaneously trying to prevent further wars. All of this was inspired by the core books, and more than 50% of our games are intrigue and role-playing.
|
And you just made my point for me. The core books can inspire, but after they do you've still got to do the world-building. Empty words can inspire, but without a world to describe with them, they're still just that.