Not what I was saying at all. Might wanna re-read my posts cos you are trying to go off in your own direction with my points.
Sorry, but I thought it was you who wrote
To me, X2 (for example) fits 4E alot better than AD&D or 3E, because AD&D/3E have very narrow definitions of how the world "is" whereas 4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone.
Because someone does a re-write you don't like doesn't mean that the original cannot be fit -- easily -- into the gameworld described. I've used KotB in 3e without any problems whatsoever, using the conversion posted here on EN World.
And changing X2 to make every pocket plane part of the Feywild or Shadowfell isn't any better -- or any less tied into an official world setting -- than what Paizo did.
AD&D 1e, 2e, and 3e make no demands as to what the world looks like. In fact, AD&D 2e is often hailed for its innovative settings -- DarkSun, Planescape, Spelljammer, etc. 1e specifically and overtly allowed for any type of plane the DM desired, including pocket planes, even if you used the Great Wheel cosmology. Have you perhaps played through Queen of the Demonweb Pits? Read the 1e Manual of the Planes? Or the 3e Manual of the Planes, even?
In AD&D 1e, the Great Wheel was a suggested cosmology. Even within that suggested cosmology, it was specified that there were an infinite number of material planes, each with its own characteristics. "1/2/3E where you have set planes that are comprised of X types of planars with Y alignment, etc etc etc." isn't actually what the books say.
I also read the part where you said
I know I'm not explaining myself all that well
so re-reading your posts hasn't altered the fact that either (1) your comments about previous editions are not based on the editions themselves, or (2) I am not understanding what you are saying at all. But what you are saying
seems to be clear. It just doesn't seem to be accurate, IMHO.
Are you focusing on D&D4 "The Game" or D&D4 "The License?" From a mechanical standpoint, you could make exactly those sorts of products that actually captured the feel of those genres with the rules
Sure you can.
But would you actually say that earlier editions are more tied into a specific idea of what the world "is" than 4e? Does it need to be pointed out just how many products TSR produced with 2e
specifically designed to help you change the world to whatever you wanted it to be? Could OD&D be any less defined in terms of how the world works?
I could change the rules to make 4e feel as though it had a world like that of 3e, if I wanted. Or 2e. Or vice versa. But I would have to change the rules to do so, and I would probably have to change the definitions of what some things mean. Which limits my ability to produce such a product in 4e at this point -- the GSL is an inherently limiting factor in what avenues 4e will explore, unless one wishes to do all the work oneself. Maybe this will change, but it is an important factor right now.
But, again, even without looking at the GSL, previous editions were every bit able to model differing worlds as 4e is. In most cases moreso, if only because of the way the silly naming conventions interact with 4e. Claiming that they were tied into a single worldview is simply wrong.
but just like 2E where most of those appeared, it requires a bit of work from someone to do it - but if done well, would actually fit better than the way they were done in 2E, I think. After all, I can't see Roland or Chalremagne just repeatedly "power attacking" when they were cutting down Saracens, or splitting them collar to crotch (or was that Turpin? Can't remember) But I can't see Turpin using "Healing Word" or "Divine Fire of the Faithful" either. I can see room for special exploits that don't scream "magic."
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but 3e allowed for literally hundreds more options than just Power Attack. And, in no historical account that I am aware of did Roland or Charlemagne heal people by hitting others, or force them to move around from a distance, or any of the 4e special exploits that scream "magic" merely by their descriptions.
RC
Given that MY classic D&D included things like robots that shot lasers and missiles and changed into cars (I was a big Transformers fan), knights that could change into animal forms at will and used staffs to cast spells (I was also a big Visionaries fan) and "wizards" with magic staffs that had access to both druid and magic-user spells (inspired by the wizards of Earthsea which - you guessed it - I was also a big fan of), any version of D&D that defines itself by what it excludes isn't MY classic D&D.
