Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 2599293" data-attributes="member: 5100">Explain what, exactly?&nbsp; That all D&amp;D products are optional?&nbsp; That fact is self-evident.&nbsp; Each campaign/setting/group plays slightly differently.&nbsp; If Incarnum works for you, that's bloody cool.&nbsp; If not, well, no armed goons are going to show up, and it doesn't invalidate anything that you've already done.Were you upset by the inclusion of Incantations in Unearthed Arcana?&nbsp; That's definitely a new magic system that has no resemblance to anything else.&nbsp; How about Taint?It must really burn you that &quot;Elements of Magic&quot; is pretty much incompatible with the core system.&nbsp; After all, how do you explain its sudden existence?&nbsp; Yeah, yeah, it's not a WotC product, but Incarnum is no more &quot;standard&quot; or &quot;required&quot; than EoM.And comparing D&amp;D to Magic is apples and oranges.&nbsp; In Magic, every set includes the assumption you've gotten the one before it (at least to a degree).&nbsp; That holds for tournaments and most casual play, too.&nbsp; In D&amp;D, the explicitly stated assumption/principle WotC works under is that you only have the core three books.I really can understand not liking the Incarnum system on its own merits.&nbsp; That makes total sense.&nbsp; I cannot believe that anyone is so conservative, close-minded, or anal-retentive that they dislike it simply because it's a bit different than anything else.If it would be hard to work into your setting, then don't bloody use it.&nbsp; It's a pretty basic concept.&nbsp; And having a campaign setting that has been painted into such a corner that it can't fit something new in (if that something is cool, which is a different discussion) isn't exactly something I'd be bragging about.&nbsp; For a game that's not exactly a value-added feature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 2599293, member: 5100"] Explain what, exactly? That all D&D products are optional? That fact is self-evident. Each campaign/setting/group plays slightly differently. If Incarnum works for you, that's bloody cool. If not, well, no armed goons are going to show up, and it doesn't invalidate anything that you've already done. Were you upset by the inclusion of Incantations in Unearthed Arcana? That's definitely a new magic system that has no resemblance to anything else. How about Taint? It must really burn you that "Elements of Magic" is pretty much incompatible with the core system. After all, how do you explain its sudden existence? Yeah, yeah, it's not a WotC product, but Incarnum is no more "standard" or "required" than EoM. And comparing D&D to Magic is apples and oranges. In Magic, every set includes the assumption you've gotten the one before it (at least to a degree). That holds for tournaments and most casual play, too. In D&D, the explicitly stated assumption/principle WotC works under is that you [u]only[/u] have the core three books. I really can understand not liking the Incarnum system on its own merits. That makes total sense. I cannot believe that anyone is so conservative, close-minded, or anal-retentive that they dislike it simply because it's a bit different than anything else. If it would be hard to work into your setting, then don't bloody use it. It's a pretty basic concept. And having a campaign setting that has been painted into such a corner that it [u]can't[/u] fit something new in (if that something is cool, which is a different discussion) isn't exactly something I'd be bragging about. For a [u]game[/u] that's not exactly a value-added feature. [/QUOTE]

Verification