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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8568251" data-attributes="member: 7023887">You think that setting-lore-inconsistency is something that Wizards of the Coast invented for D&D? That is just laughably wrong. How many retcons and world-changing events happened to official D&D settings while TSR was in charge? There was the Time of Troubles for the Forgotten Realms, the Prism Pentad for Dark Sun, and the various different eras and versions of the Dragonlance setting all before TSR was bought by WotC. Lore retcons and inconsistencies within D&D settings have been around waaaaay earlier than D&D 3e.If anything, Wizards of the Coast inherited a mess of lore-inconsistencies and revisions that they had to sort through and choose to do their own take/versions on.They are. They still are. Have you bought any recently published setting books? The settings are absolutely different. Strixhaven is completely different from Theros, which is completely different from Eberron, which is completely different from Ravenloft, which is completely different from Exandria, which is completely different from Ravnica. Sharing a few common aspects between most/a few settings is absolutely nothing new to D&D, and is something that's been a part of the hobby since it began. Ever since the game was released, there have always been base assumptions about the races/monsters that will be included there. Most settings in TSR-era D&D included Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, and Humans, and often also included Goblinoids, Orcs, Kobolds, Gnolls, and all of the same classes. Mystara, Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and Dragonlance all had Dwarves, Elves, Halflings (well, Kender for Dragonlance, but they are basically the same thing), and Humans. Out of those five settings, only Dragonlance and Dark Sun don't Goblinoids, Orcs, and Gnolls.Each setting can absolutely be very different from each other while also sharing common elements. Dark Sun is absolutely different from Eberron and Mystara, even if they all share similar races.Again, blame TSR for this. A shared multiverse has been a thing in D&D since AD&D, with the introduction of the Planescape and Spelljammer settings. Connecting the Feywild to the a lot of D&D settings is no more outrageous than giving every D&D world a Crystal Sphere and the Great Wheel Cosmology."There was nothing magical about them" and "they had magical origins" are contradictory statements. Also, getting rid of the main thing that made many DMs and players hate the race (genetically-enforced kleptomania) is overall a beneficial thing to the setting and game as a whole.Here's the thing, you're saying that retconning something is inherently bad. I fundamentally disagree with this. If Gully Dwarves get retconned out of existence, I think that would absolutely be a good thing. They're chock full of ableist and bigoted stereotypes of mentally disabled peoples, and definitely should not be published in this day and age. Getting rid of them would be a retcon, yes, but retcons are not fundamentally bad things. Retcons are tools. They can be misused, yes, just like every other tool in existence, but their usage does not inherently imply that the people doing the retcon are messing something up.Something can be improved upon by a retcon. Obviously not all retcons are good, but they're not all bad, either. Especially if there is something wrong with the source material (which Dragonlance is full of).4e already had Dark Sun with the Feywild. And from what I've seen in this thread, it's actually pretty popular, being an interesting take on the plane of existence in the setting.</blockquote>

Verification