Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectral Knight
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.
|
Relax. That was never my intention. But going back over what you
did say, I find I am not clear as to what your point was supposed to be.
Would it be fair to say you feel that D&D's focus on combat detracts from its utility as a role-playing game then? This seems to be you initial point. Where I get confused is that you seem to take issue with the previous poster's statement that D&D 4 has more "flavor" in the core books with evocative references, and that it feels more like "fantasy" to him. Your response sounds to me--not putting words in your mouth, just trying to be clear--that you feel evocative references are not enough, and that a role-playing game should contain more setting information and advice on role-playing (from your statement in the first part).
Quote:
|
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.
|
Can I assume this means you prefer a ready-made world to "empty words?" I can't honestly tell from this if that is the case.
At any rate, some might prefer "empty words" to having everything supplied for them. The evocative reference is a wonderful springboard for the imagination. Robin Laws/Greg Stafford's
HeroQuest once made the suggestion that you fill your character's background with such vague references and terms, such as possessing the "Bag of Seven Winds" or having escaped the "slaves pits of Caucoth," because they can be fleshed out as you play. For my part, I find the vagueness of the Feywild and Shadowfell appealing, because I can flesh them out to suit my needs and those of the players. If they had been fully described, I would have had to have rewritten them anyway.