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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sundragon2012" data-source="post: 3793549" data-attributes="member: 7624">Let's be honest here.Because all this stuff is imaginary (though the concepts they are derived from may not be) hasn't D&D always been an issue of folks playing in Gary Gygax's, Mike Mearls', Monte Cook's, etc. homebrew games? Of course this is unless one creates a entire setting whole cloth which is possible of course.However, the whole Great Wheel, the nature of the planes, the fact that alignments were actual "things" as opposed to merely points of view, the named spells ie. Modenkainen's this and that, the names of the demon princes and arch-devils as well as their relative natures and strengths....in fact anything outside of pure game mechanics (and even some of those) is someone else's homebrew.This is why I never take CORE canon lore(I vastly prefer the term lore to fluff ) seriously in my games, not because it isn't good (sometimes its great, sometimes it stinks) but because I have no particular desire to give another individual's imagination more relevance than my own. If I choose to get into a given setting such as Dragonlance, FR, Midnight, ect. than all bets are off. In these cases I willfully suspend my own imagination to an extent so as to buy into the shared fantasy and atmosphere of the setting.IMO core is merely the mechanics of a generic, nameless, faceless setting. All fluff included with said core rules is completely optional and has no bearing on anything outside of this core "setting" unless an individual DM wants it to.Sundragon</blockquote>

Verification