I have no idea what your talking about. I only know MTG through D&D really.I dont really care to continue this, but bringing up MTG is a great example of how I hate it.
In MTG, you used to go to all these different worlds, same multiverse, and see them. Fine.
Then, Wizards decided they needed a few 'faces for the game', and they leaned into the Lorwyn 5, the eventual Gatewatch or "Jacetice League" as it was sometimes referred to.
I hate it, and it will never change.
Sorry to drag the conversation out and upset. That is not my goal. I am really just trying to understand why you hate it. By I guess that is the thing about hate, it is personal and not completely rational. What seems like a non-issue to me, is a big deal to you. I am sure there are things that trigger me and don't bother you. I don't get it, but I don't have to either. I respect your hate and I hope you can do the same for my tolerance. Have a great day!So thats fine, you all can have your view, and it can be as rare or as common as you like, but I hate it, and always will.
Pushing a view into the game that shrinks it, by focusing on a small number of perspectives, repeatedly over multiple sets and years.I have no idea what your talking about. I only know MTG through D&D really.
Sorry to drag the conversation out and upset.
This is sort of my problem with the current 'multiverse' push - I loved that Planescape offered the chance to run a multiversal D&D game, and I loved that Dark Sun and Eberron had their own cosmologies and were specifically 'something else'*. The explicit support to do either was neat.I wouldnt want to see Athas, Eberron, Krynn, and Toril all through the same party or character, when those places all have their own unique tone.
I really don't understand. What does it matter who the "face" of a card game is? Isn't that arguing if the Queen of Hearts or the Ace of Diamonds is the face of poker?Pushing a view into the game that shrinks it, by focusing on a small number of perspectives, repeatedly over multiple sets and years.
There was a period where Jace, a planeswalker in MTG, was the assumed face of the game. This later shifting to Chandra/Lilliana for reasons over other sets. I couldnt tell you who is the face now.
And I don't see why that is ever likely to happen. The universe is full of worlds, but you don't see many aliens walking along the high street.No harm! Its all good. Its the concept I hate. The shrinking of the 'universe' by pushing ones view through a smaller set of eyes and perspectives.
I wouldnt want to see Athas, Eberron, Krynn, and Toril all through the same party or character, when those places all have their own unique tone.
That's easy, canon has no point.Ultimately its kind of the 'what is the point of canon' conversation, some care, some dont.
Again, I have no idea what your talking about - maybe we just drop the MTG references, I don't get them.Pushing a view into the game that shrinks it, by focusing on a small number of perspectives, repeatedly over multiple sets and years.
There was a period where Jace, a planeswalker in MTG, was the assumed face of the game. This later shifting to Chandra/Lilliana for reasons over other sets. I couldnt tell you who is the face now.
But no one has ever forced you to and the lore has been like this for a long time (at least for Athas and Eberron), so what has changed? Or have you always hated Eberron and Athas?No harm! Its all good. Its the concept I hate. The shrinking of the 'universe' by pushing ones view through a smaller set of eyes and perspectives.
I wouldnt want to see Athas, Eberron, Krynn, and Toril all through the same party or character, when those places all have their own unique tone.
A care for canon only as a point of inspiration. To me canon is what my group plays (it is a game), not what WotC, TSR, Paizo, Ed Greenwood, or Keith Baker print on a page. Now I actually use quite a bit of those written words in my campaign, but I have never felt beholden to it.Ultimately its kind of the 'what is the point of canon' conversation, some care, some dont.