Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6132957" data-attributes="member: 22779">This would only be inconsistent if I was advocating 4e flavour in a 5e game.&nbsp; However, since virtually no 4e canon is being brought forward into 5e, I don't care.&nbsp; So, no, I don't see the contradiction.&nbsp; 4e ejected a lot of older flavour.&nbsp; Whenever there was a choice between maintaining previous canon and trying something new that might gain more traction, they hit the eject button every time.Now, they probably went too far with this.&nbsp; But, for me, that's the better option than, &quot;We must never deviate from what came before because it might bother someone who's using a twenty year old supplement.&quot;&nbsp;[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] - Sure, I've defended 4e against various criticisms, both valid and ridiculous.Thing is, I'm not, in any way, criticizing Planescape.&nbsp; It's not that PS lore is bad or good.&nbsp; I'm quite sure lots of PS lore is fantastic.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; But, in any discussion of planar elements, for some reason, &quot;It was written this way before thus it should NEVER be changed&quot; becomes the base reason for shutting down any discussion.If an element has failed to gain traction after twenty years, there shouldn't be any problem in revising that element.&nbsp; There has to be something like a statute of limitations on just how long we have to maintain a particular piece of gaming lore before it becomes possible to revisit it and possibly rewrite it.&nbsp; Not that we have to.&nbsp; It might be that that idea is good enough to stand on its own.&nbsp; Fair enough.But, &quot;This is the way we did it before&quot; is never a good enough reason to keep doing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6132957, member: 22779"] This would only be inconsistent if I was advocating 4e flavour in a 5e game. However, since virtually no 4e canon is being brought forward into 5e, I don't care. So, no, I don't see the contradiction. 4e ejected a lot of older flavour. Whenever there was a choice between maintaining previous canon and trying something new that might gain more traction, they hit the eject button every time. Now, they probably went too far with this. But, for me, that's the better option than, "We must never deviate from what came before because it might bother someone who's using a twenty year old supplement." [MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] - Sure, I've defended 4e against various criticisms, both valid and ridiculous. Thing is, I'm not, in any way, criticizing Planescape. It's not that PS lore is bad or good. I'm quite sure lots of PS lore is fantastic. Fair enough. But, in any discussion of planar elements, for some reason, "It was written this way before thus it should NEVER be changed" becomes the base reason for shutting down any discussion. If an element has failed to gain traction after twenty years, there shouldn't be any problem in revising that element. There has to be something like a statute of limitations on just how long we have to maintain a particular piece of gaming lore before it becomes possible to revisit it and [u]possibly[/u] rewrite it. Not that we have to. It might be that that idea is good enough to stand on its own. Fair enough. But, "This is the way we did it before" is never a good enough reason to keep doing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification