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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8589264" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, that's where you lose me.  A series of material, that virtually no one actually read or bought, suddenly must be adhered to for no other reason than it happened to come first?  Yeah, no thanks.  It's no different than someone claiming that because there was an article in Dragon Magazine in 1997 where X was declared, we must absolutely adhere to that forevermore.  I've watched in growing consternation as groups of fans circle the wagons and declare this or that MUST BE TRUE regardless of the actual quality of whatever it is that they are insisting must be followed.Imagine if people insisting that Romeo and Juliet can only be set in Verona in the 15th century.  No other versions must ever be made.  Considering the recent Oscars, I'd say that would be a huge loss.These are shared settings.  They are collections of a bajillion different authors of varying skill and knowledge of the setting.  Insisting that lore must be carved in stone and never changed is such a colossal waste of time.  It means that if someone doesn't like a given setting, then they will never like it.  But, if you allow different versions to exist, then everyone is happy.  If you want to use the 3e material for Dragonlance (say) there is absolutely nothing stopping you.  But, why do I have to?  Why do I have to play in the version of Dragonlance that you like but I don't?  Why can't I have a version too?Given the choice between continuity and creativity, I'll take creativity every single time, even when what's created isn't something that I want.  I know that next time around, there will be another chance.  But, set things in stone?  Yeah, I'll go back to completely ignoring the published settings thanks and watch as the dwindling numbers of setting fans shrink into oblivion.</blockquote>

Verification