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: 8349465" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Sorry. I didn't intend to be aggro about it, I just didn't really see the benefit of looking at it that way when I'm talking about not liking the general direction of the game as a whole, not any problem I've had in running the game.Being able to change a thing doesn't make that thing not bad. Or bad. Or anything. It has no effect of any kind on the quality of the thing.As above, okay, that doesn't make it good lore. It just means I can do whatever i want, which I would be doing even if I loved everything about the direction of DnD's lore and the DMG explicitly asked me not to do so. I generally don't view canon as having any authority of any kind in the context of fan interactions, and the very small authority it does have is whatever the IP holder enforces/can enforce on licensed works using that IP. I don't view the mechanical rules as actual rules, I certainly don't see lore as rules.I am not as opposed to that type of reboot as I used to be, but I'd still rather just let 100 years or so pass (or even longer so that all the old characters are naturally dead in the new era, if it makes things easier, though I'd like for a few to be around to optionally use as advisors and mentors and such) and rewrite the setting in the new era, retconning only what is really needed, like Gully Dwarves, and writing the setting to be in a very similar place, having come full circle, as it was in the first days of he War of The Lance.It being in the same multiverse in the marvel sense I'm fine with. It being a bubbel in the ethereal and elves coming from correlon even though he doesn't exist in Eberron is where the problem lies.</blockquote>

Verification