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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ryltar" data-source="post: 5391299" data-attributes="member: 19393">Well, I didn't intend to start an edition war there <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. Therefore, just a quick clarification:I was, of course, talking about generalizations, especially with regard to setting fluff. I've met several gamers who, as one, declared that "the old setting fluff from (insert boxed set of your choice here) was way better that anything published in modern times", followed by some kind of justification: it's not that over the top, it's simpler, there aren't any novels that force setting canon on me (Hi, FR!), etc. Often, this line of thought is then transported over to newly released supplements that appeal to the old-school crowd - because it says it's old school, OF COURSE it has better stories than modern releases.Which, to me, is both silly and kind of missing the point that each setting is only as good as you - as the DM - make it. Ignore what you don't like, pick what you like. No-one ever said you have to play anime RPGs just because you use a modern ruleset. Also, you don't have to play pure hack and slash just because you play OD&D. And so on ...But since I don't really have any kind of in-depth knowledge about said RPG supplements (some of which I at least browsed), it is something that may as well be me being prejudiced. Thus, slightly guilty.</blockquote>

Verification