Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4529952" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sorry, but I thought it was you who wroteBecause 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 saidso 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.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.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</blockquote>

Verification