Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 7472629" data-attributes="member: 22424">Because of metaplot, I don't think it's possible to produce a conversion of most of the settings that will satisfy everyone - they'd have to decide whether to convert the setting as it originally was, as it was when it was last visited, or somewhere in between. And since so many of the settings have been 'ruined' by metaplot events, you'll never get the fanbase to settle on one good restore point.(And the above assumes it's possible to satisfy everyone anyway. Given the nature of D&amp;D fans, that's not going to happen anyway.)The upshot of that is that I don't think the designers should even try to satisfy everyone. Instead, they should attempt to do whatever produces the best resulting setting, regardless of how they get there; whether that's an update to the metaplot, a conversion of the setting as it was last seen, a hard reboot back to the first publication, a 'soft' reboot to the first publication plus cherry-picked additional material, some sort of 'Ultimates' version, or something else entirely. Produce the best product they can, and let the fans decide.And, of course, there's no need for them to be consistent across everything - maybe Greyhawk is best served with a hard reboot, Eberron with being kept as-is, FR with an update to the metaplot, and Dragonlance with an 'Ultimates' version. Or some other combination.All IMO, of course.Oh, yes, and I agree with the OP about the need (or lack thereof) for an overarching multi-verse. Strong flavours tend not to always taste good together. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 7472629, member: 22424"] Because of metaplot, I don't think it's possible to produce a conversion of most of the settings that will satisfy everyone - they'd have to decide whether to convert the setting as it originally was, as it was when it was last visited, or somewhere in between. And since so many of the settings have been 'ruined' by metaplot events, you'll never get the fanbase to settle on one good restore point. (And the above assumes it's possible to satisfy everyone anyway. Given the nature of D&D fans, that's not going to happen anyway.) The upshot of that is that I don't think the designers should even [i]try[/i] to satisfy everyone. Instead, they should attempt to do whatever produces the best resulting setting, regardless of how they get there; whether that's an update to the metaplot, a conversion of the setting as it was last seen, a hard reboot back to the first publication, a 'soft' reboot to the first publication plus cherry-picked additional material, some sort of 'Ultimates' version, or something else entirely. Produce the best product they can, and let the fans decide. And, of course, there's no need for them to be consistent across everything - maybe Greyhawk is best served with a hard reboot, Eberron with being kept as-is, FR with an update to the metaplot, and Dragonlance with an 'Ultimates' version. Or some other combination. All IMO, of course. Oh, yes, and I agree with the OP about the need (or lack thereof) for an overarching multi-verse. Strong flavours tend not to always taste good together. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification