Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9575012" data-attributes="member: 82106">I always vaguely despised the GW. I mean, it is this huge obtuse ramshackle thing. In a sense it is sort of cool, there's all this structure, etc. As some sort of fantasy universe building exercise it is fun, though also a bit silly. The problem comes when you actually want it to give you good play, at a structural level.The GW is an eternal, essentially static universe. If it has any 'epic' themes, overall trajectory, fate, etc. none of this is within the purview of the PCs, or apparently even the gods they supposedly revere, who seem more like rats in the walls than anything else. It can only really be a kind of static backdrop or a species of terrain to navigate.By contrast the WA cosmology of 4e is built exactly to serve as a tool of play. Built right into its structure is a cosmic struggle between order and chaos, one which resonates deeply with our most ancient stories and beliefs. The characters have a deep stake in this! Their town, their nation, their world are all related directly to the goings on in the very heavens. And they can be a part of that mighty epic, maybe a small, or a large part, as desired. Heck, WA can play the exact same role as GW, an uncaring and infinite cosm if you want.It's funny, because the cosmology we developed in the playing of D&D in the world I mapped out in the mid 1970s looks so much like WA I would accuse WotC of ripping me off, but of course that's absurd, we just both naturally responded to the same needs in the same way. It'd be interesting to hear from the person who did the principal design of WA, I think we must share some pretty similar ideas!</blockquote>

Verification