Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8349226" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Nah, it definitely is. I can be sure of that both because multiple people in this thread aren’t having any trouble getting it, and I have this issue often here, but almost never anywhere else. Voicing a preference opposed to the direction the game is going isn’t “upset” or being “worked up”. No, it wouldn’t, because one doesn’t even follow from the other. Blinkingman.gif  Okay, let’s try again. The point is not whether the progenitors are real and the story is true. Nitpicking the example does not engage with the point being illustrated by the example, for one thing.   For another, the scenario presupposes that the DM in the example has decided to use them as real, and use them as a vehicle for a cosmic revelation. Therefor, the question of whether they are real is completely irrelevant to the scenario in question.  Lastly, the statement that I made was not about whether they are real. I stated that if they are real, the new lore demotes them from what they would be in a game without the news lore in which they are also real.  I had and have no need to comment on the effect of the lore on games where the cosmology doesn’t matter and the progenitors aren’t treated as/revealed to be real. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />I’m not…unhappy? I don’t get it. I don’t assume that someone who dislikes a change or prefers a different model is upset about it. I mean, you can play the game in a way where cosmic truth is not knowable, but that’s hardly a safe assumption about games broadly, and it certainly isn’t better than the other way, it’s just your preference. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Ah yes, from “ego” to “bad roleplaying and/or inability to compartmentalize”. Can you make an argument on this topic without insulting the people you disagree with, or no?Thank you. Honestly I’d forgotten just how far Rising goes to make Eberron explicitly a sub domain of the Great Wheel.   Like, DMs who do stick to canon now have origin revelations about the various races cut off from them as options, as do writers putting works on DMsGuild. Now, Eberron DMs who modify from canon have to contend not just with Eberron lore, but also with Great Wheel lore. I’m very glad that my group pretty much agrees that the lore change is silly and/or bad, and we continue to use the same lore we used when starting the campaign, but future games of Eberron, for many groups, will be different.   Like, the only thing I’m “upset” by in this thread is people acting like no campaigns interact with the cosmology enough for this stuff to impact a campaign, or try to claim that there literally hasn’t been a change. There objectively has been. You prefer it, great. At least admit it’s a change!</blockquote>

Verification