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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5655111" data-attributes="member: 61155">WotC's hyperbolic dismissal aside, I don't think anyone is claiming you couldn't make use of the various mono-planes ('all vacuum', 'all earth', 'all fire', etc) - just that it was generally difficult to do so, and they felt their was room for an improvement. I think it's hard to deny that there are some inherent difficulties presented in the nature of such planes. Now, one can totally argue that other benefits outweighed those downsides (the symbolism, the challenge and need for creative approach, the symmetry, etc.) But dismissing the idea of anyone being dissatisfied with those planes strikes me as no better than WotC's dismissal of anyone having a use for them.   I hate these statements, because they are so... backhandedly insulting.  I have no problems with someone saying, "Yeah, I prefer the 3rd Edition cosmology, since I'm more familiar with it and like the symmetrical nature and some of the specific complexities of the planar intrigues. I can totally understand someone liking a different cosmology, too." That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  But instead, we get folks who say, "Yeah, I prefer the 3rd Edition cosmology, since the 4E one is devoid of intrigue and roleplaying and interaction and all about killing things. Oh, I'm not saying thats bad! Its cool if you like that, since you clearly don't play the game for the RP, and its good you have an edition that suits you!" Your statements just... totally have no connection to what has actually been published for 4E. There are tons of planar locales with plenty of room for intrigue and interaction and roleplaying, and plenty of it built right into the stuff they publish. I'm not talk about the adventures (which I haven't used too much of), so maybe that is where your errant interpretation of things comes from. I'm focusing on the material in the books, the DDI articles, etc. Which provide a robust world full of backstory, full of interaction. Which provide plenty of advice about the game, and none of it consists of "go kill evil things and don't bother with depth or world detail." Which provides an entire plane for interacting with the faerie folk.  Taking one quote, out of context, and allowing it to trump all the actual material published... sorry, it just frustrates me to see such blatantly inaccurate claims about the game, especially thrown in there with a halfhearted, "Oh, but I'm sure its cool if you like playing that sort of thing." Look, I ran a planescape campaign in 3.5, and an epic campaign in 4E. The locations may have been (slightly) different, but the other elements of the game played out exactly the same. In one, they tried to solve a mystery of disappearing demons in Sigil; in the other, a murder mystery in Hestavar. One game involved a dangerous bargain made with Mephistopheles; the other, a war of words and ideas with Loki. Attempts to 'reason' with Slaad, playing factions and affiliations against each other, planar exploration and investigation, the need for creative solutions to problems that violence just couldn't solve - both present in both campaigns.  And driven, in each, about half the time by whatever random ideas I came up with, and half the time inspired and supported by concepts in existing setting material.  I just don't see it as possible that one can truly read the lore in the 4E planar books and articles - or even just the lore that crops up incidentaly in books like Primal Power, Divine Power, etc - and still insist that WotC feels "there's no need for boring depth and world detail".  And if that isn't actually what you meant... maybe, in the future, just say that you prefer the Great Wheel and offer reasons why you like it, rather than condeming and dismissing the 4E cosmology with hyperbolic complaints that aren't actually grounded in any 4E content at all?</blockquote>

Verification