Re: Background?

At 09:57 PM 9/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Again, I respect what you say, but there is one HUGE glaring exception
to
all 
>of what you said.  The GRANDDADDY of all Fantasy games.  The one
without 
>whose success 99% of our Fantasy (as well as Sci-fi) games would not
even 
>have been created.  I speak of course about "Dungeons and Dragons".  
>
>Think about it for a minute.  This game has changed very little over
the 
>years and it has always been sparse to completely nonexistent with
regard to 
>a pre-established background.	Hell, it takes a one person (the DM)
WORKING 
>overtime LONG BEFORE the game even begins to BUILD a background so that

>OTHERS people can play!  This does not sound like an awful lot of
people 
>need, or even really want to be 'spoon-fed' there background to me and
GW
has 
>wet dreams about selling as many copies of Warhammer as D&D have sold 
>"Player's Handbook(s)" and "Dungeon Master's Guide(s)"  ;-))

	3rd edition D&D (they are dropping the advanced part) is going
to have the
Greyhawk setting as its core setting, they will also still be supporting
the Forgotten Realms.
	They are tieing a setting into the rules and 99% of the people I
know who
play D&D use an existing setting published by TSR.

	I could go on, but you can check it out at: www.wizards.com/3e/

	I am not basing this on just my own perceptions, I don't care
for canned
worlds myself, but the folks on the DnD Mailing list certainly seem to
prefer them to the point of having flamewars over Greyhawk vs. Fogotten
Realms.  (Strange that I am on it since I don't actually play D&D much
anymore, or run it ever, bu 3rd ed looks interesting).

	Anyhow, I really do think that the vast weight of numbers leads
me to
believe that most people want their world provided for them.

Later,

Voivode Shrike (Ryan Fisk)
voivode@voyager.net

"It's not denial.  I'm just very
 selective about the reality I accept."
-Calvin 
(Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Watterson)