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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8618392" data-attributes="member: 59082">Everyone is different, of course. My 13-year old has a knee-jerk reaction against films that are from before 1990 or so (and 90s are borderline). I'm hoping/assuming she'll grow out of it, though!But don't miss the forest for the trees. I was using that as analogy, which is the main point. Older D&D is like black and white, newer D&D like full color. Not a value judgment either way, mind you.Yes, agreed on the economic bottom line - which is why I think FR is more likely, as I said.As for "offensive" content, that is an underlying implication in these discussions, but one that doesn't prove particularly fruitful. But I think part of the problem is any assumption made towards some kind of objective or agreed upon litmus test for what is or is not offensive. There's a lot of gray in-between the obvious extremes of "offensive to almost no one" and "offensive to almost everyone," and the gray areas are always shifting. They can play it safe, but then you start sanitizing older stuff in ways that take away from the original thematic content (e.g. muls in Dark Sun).But I'm not primarily talking about such content, but more the other stuff: e.g. do dragonborn have a place in Greyhawk? Are there starlight elves? Etc.I'm all for re-visioning old stuff, but I also wonder if there's a point where it is just best to move on and create something new. This critique can be waged at Hollywood, which seems far more interested on re-booting (or re-re-booting) old franchises than it is in creating new ones. And each re-boot is remade with new sensibilities in mind. To me this is just creatively lazy.</blockquote>

Verification