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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6132289" data-attributes="member: 3400">It's not just with Planescape, though. It's unnecessary changes in general with any new edition vs compatibility and continuity. What's the point of naming a game a new edition of Game X when the ground the game is based on, either rules structure or other elements, keeps shifting? Assuming that the primary reason for a new edition is changes to the rules, you end up having to accept shifts there (exactly how shifty is still subject to debate - there's no way I'm going to agree that a classless or level-less game is D&D, for example). But a game edition that produces core creatures/races/or implied setting elements that don't match is shooting much of the sense of continuity between the two editions right in the foot and that's going to hamper new edition adoption. It may seem like small potatoes to people who didn't use that bit of game lore in the first place or who like some new changed element better, but we've seen people around here post that it really does get in their way. Why would game designers want to put up barriers to adoption? What do they get out of it? Space to design new stuff when they can already have that by using new names for things rather than repurposing what's already out there?For what it's worth, I kind of like 4e's astral sea metaphor for planar cosmology. But then that's mostly a cosmetic change that could still be compatible with Planescape ideas and the Great Wheel. I was a lot less interested in the restructuring of devils and demons because it would disconnect with campaigns I have run.</blockquote>

Verification