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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 3011587" data-attributes="member: 11697">Well of course, I won't have the gestapo break into your house just because you refer to Gelugons as Ice Devils. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It does help to remain faithful to prior material for continuities sake, as it keeps people happy though (such as the tempest with 3e FR's retcons of geography, vanishing gods, vanishing planes, etc).Alright, that's a fair statment. The question of course remains where to draw the line of when does one source elaborate to the extent that it differs too much from the original? But as you say next...That's a nice way of approaching it I think. Now what would be incredibly awesome would be if they gave citations or references to earlier books they draw from, or just point people towards a sourcebook/module/product line if they're interested in a more detailed look. We saw this to a brief extent in some early 3e books when they said 'taken from material from X book by Y author'. It seems that they've moved away from this recently though from what I've seen.*noddin* I just oftentimes see its contributions rejected offhand because some folks see it as "just another setting", and ignore the metasetting aspects prior to 3e.And the differences between them could spawn a thread in and of itself. *chuckle* Lots of changes for creative reasons and the evolution of the material, and also changes because of creative restrictions or because mechanics forced some alterations, etc.</blockquote>

Verification