Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8528820" data-attributes="member: 22779">However, there was more to D&amp;D than just setting specifics.&nbsp; Every monster manual, for example, had to be Planescape Compatible (devils could only come from the Hells, demons could only come from the Abyss, all dieties existed on the aligned planes, regardless of setting, etc), modules would also follow along with Planescape themes and concepts as well, long into 3e.&nbsp; The fact is, the Great Wheel became totally incorporated by Planescape and if you published anything in D&amp;D that had anything to do with the planes, it had to follow Planescape canon.&nbsp; The point I was replying to was the thought that setting were distinct in the past but became mixed together in later editions.&nbsp; The fact is, the settings were 100% mashed together pretty much from the get go - The Wizard's Three being a good example - and the notion of setting distinctness of cosmologies never really existed.-----The funny thing is, I see this from the other way around.&nbsp; I was an inveterate home brewer.&nbsp; Never bought into any setting, and barely bought any setting specific material, until 3e.&nbsp; If a module was specifically set in a setting, I usually skipped it - with a few exceptions. So, the idea that D&amp;D is something I follow for the settings is largely alien to my experience.&nbsp; I followed D&amp;D for the system, then mined the settings for ideas, but, largely ignored them.&nbsp; So, the whole &quot;cosmology&quot; and shared experience thing, for me, is largely something that has never been part of my &quot;D&amp;D experience&quot;.&nbsp; Which is I rail against things like Planescape because the lore of Planescape has become the default of the game.&nbsp; Which means I have to yank 99% of it out whenever I want to do anything planar.&nbsp; My Elemental Plane of Air is not related and probably doesn't look like, anything WotC or TSR published.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8528820, member: 22779"] However, there was more to D&D than just setting specifics. Every monster manual, for example, had to be Planescape Compatible (devils could only come from the Hells, demons could only come from the Abyss, all dieties existed on the aligned planes, regardless of setting, etc), modules would also follow along with Planescape themes and concepts as well, long into 3e. The fact is, the Great Wheel became totally incorporated by Planescape and if you published anything in D&D that had anything to do with the planes, it had to follow Planescape canon. The point I was replying to was the thought that setting were distinct in the past but became mixed together in later editions. The fact is, the settings were 100% mashed together pretty much from the get go - The Wizard's Three being a good example - and the notion of setting distinctness of cosmologies never really existed. ----- The funny thing is, I see this from the other way around. I was an inveterate home brewer. Never bought into any setting, and barely bought any setting specific material, until 3e. If a module was specifically set in a setting, I usually skipped it - with a few exceptions. So, the idea that D&D is something I follow for the settings is largely alien to my experience. I followed D&D for the system, then mined the settings for ideas, but, largely ignored them. So, the whole "cosmology" and shared experience thing, for me, is largely something that has never been part of my "D&D experience". Which is I rail against things like Planescape because the lore of Planescape has become the default of the game. Which means I have to yank 99% of it out whenever I want to do anything planar. My Elemental Plane of Air is not related and probably doesn't look like, anything WotC or TSR published. [/QUOTE]

Verification