Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8900187" data-attributes="member: 18">I think there's a double-asterisk myself because it not only requires automation to be that slick but also ties itself to a specific setting and is very much non-trivial to convert to another settings, because so much about race, culture and so on is hyperspecific to Golarion. And whilst it wasn't asked in the list, imho, if a game isn't generic enough to play multiple settings without the DM having to do a ton of work, maybe it's not quite D&amp;D?Which, er, unfortunately has made slightly sympathetic to the &quot;4E isn't D&amp;D&quot; arguments despite my love for 4E, not that I agree fully, but the major changes to the implicit setting, which kind of mad a bit more of a pain to convert to other settings (and indeed caused the absolute foolishness that was the Spellplague and so on - really they should have glossed over it like 3E did and acted like it was always that way).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8900187, member: 18"] I think there's a double-asterisk myself because it not only requires automation to be that slick but also ties itself to a specific setting and is very much non-trivial to convert to another settings, because so much about race, culture and so on is hyperspecific to Golarion. And whilst it wasn't asked in the list, imho, if a game isn't generic enough to play multiple settings without the DM having to do a ton of work, maybe it's not quite D&D? Which, er, unfortunately has made slightly sympathetic to the "4E isn't D&D" arguments despite my love for 4E, not that I agree fully, but the major changes to the implicit setting, which kind of mad a bit more of a pain to convert to other settings (and indeed caused the absolute foolishness that was the Spellplague and so on - really they should have glossed over it like 3E did and acted like it was always that way). [/QUOTE]

Verification