Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 6123971" data-attributes="member: 8863">I wasn't overly impressed by the Red Death article myself, as it seemed too setting specific for general use, and Red Death was just an extention to Ravenloft to begin with.&nbsp; And I had mostly a big meh for the Chainmail article, another failed setting from early 3e getting some page time here.&nbsp; So why was it that they didn't have space for a Spelljammer article but they managed to squeeze in stuff for Ghostwalk (which could arguably not even be considered a full setting on its own) and Chainmail?&nbsp; Eberron certainly looked like an interesting approach though I never played it and I'm not really familiar with the setting at all.&nbsp; At least D&amp;D was no longer trying to ape a feudal medieval European setting that was poorly suited to it.&nbsp; By this point I was growing tired of that approach, sarcastically refering to the typical D&amp;D setting as a Renaissance Faire on crack rather than anything genuinely medieval.&nbsp; Even if Eberron really sucked badly, it at least made an effort to acknowledge the D&amp;Disms instead of trying to suppress them to mimic the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDungAges" target="_blank">&quot;Dung Ages&quot;</a> (that's WFRP's schtick anyway, no?).I liked the articles that had the most portability to homebrew settings, as well as articles that gave updates to a setting's important mechanical features.&nbsp; My least favortie articles were ones that offered little more than a pretty setting-specific PrC that had limited use for me.This might be one of the last issues I comment on.&nbsp; It's well past the point where I was reading the magazine regularly, and it's firmly in 3.5.&nbsp; &nbsp; I liked the devloping flavor of 3.5 less and less as it went on, and stopped following the game's development sometime before the release of 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 6123971, member: 8863"] I wasn't overly impressed by the Red Death article myself, as it seemed too setting specific for general use, and Red Death was just an extention to Ravenloft to begin with. And I had mostly a big meh for the Chainmail article, another failed setting from early 3e getting some page time here. So why was it that they didn't have space for a Spelljammer article but they managed to squeeze in stuff for Ghostwalk (which could arguably not even be considered a full setting on its own) and Chainmail? Eberron certainly looked like an interesting approach though I never played it and I'm not really familiar with the setting at all. At least D&D was no longer trying to ape a feudal medieval European setting that was poorly suited to it. By this point I was growing tired of that approach, sarcastically refering to the typical D&D setting as a Renaissance Faire on crack rather than anything genuinely medieval. Even if Eberron really sucked badly, it at least made an effort to acknowledge the D&Disms instead of trying to suppress them to mimic the [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDungAges]"Dung Ages"[/url] (that's WFRP's schtick anyway, no?). I liked the articles that had the most portability to homebrew settings, as well as articles that gave updates to a setting's important mechanical features. My least favortie articles were ones that offered little more than a pretty setting-specific PrC that had limited use for me. This might be one of the last issues I comment on. It's well past the point where I was reading the magazine regularly, and it's firmly in 3.5. I liked the devloping flavor of 3.5 less and less as it went on, and stopped following the game's development sometime before the release of 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification