Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="psionotic" data-source="post: 3817169" data-attributes="member: 397">Two things: One, Rappan Athuk is very fun, but if 'extensively playtested' also means 'balanced' then, er, no.&nbsp; Secondly, how could RA exist in the same world as Freeport and Ptolus?&nbsp; Maybe if you're going for a Rifts-like 'everything but the kitchen sink' world, but come on:&nbsp; They have completely different aesthetics and styles.&nbsp; Athuk is old school nonsensical dungeoneering, Freeport is a mix of Lovecraft and Lieber, and Ptolus is post 3.x high fantasy...&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, I like and appreciate them all, but I prefer my campaign world, such as it is, to be more consistent in tone.Edit: Just reread your post and caught the smiley, so you may have been only half serious.&nbsp; Still though, I'm going to leave this here b/c it points to something I've noticed about the 4e criticism:&nbsp; The 'old school' peeps like Necromancer, and some of the ex-WotC people (like Pramas, Mona, Cook, etc) who have put together successful imprints aren't all together with their idea of what makes D&amp;D what it is... Clearly, some of them have more in common then others.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the idea that all the third parties, with their multiple different approaches, somehow have the same idea of what D&amp;D 'should be' is a little strange to me...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="psionotic, post: 3817169, member: 397"] Two things: One, Rappan Athuk is very fun, but if 'extensively playtested' also means 'balanced' then, er, no. Secondly, how could RA exist in the same world as Freeport and Ptolus? Maybe if you're going for a Rifts-like 'everything but the kitchen sink' world, but come on: They have completely different aesthetics and styles. Athuk is old school nonsensical dungeoneering, Freeport is a mix of Lovecraft and Lieber, and Ptolus is post 3.x high fantasy... Don't get me wrong, I like and appreciate them all, but I prefer my campaign world, such as it is, to be more consistent in tone. Edit: Just reread your post and caught the smiley, so you may have been only half serious. Still though, I'm going to leave this here b/c it points to something I've noticed about the 4e criticism: The 'old school' peeps like Necromancer, and some of the ex-WotC people (like Pramas, Mona, Cook, etc) who have put together successful imprints aren't all together with their idea of what makes D&D what it is... Clearly, some of them have more in common then others. But the idea that all the third parties, with their multiple different approaches, somehow have the same idea of what D&D 'should be' is a little strange to me... [/QUOTE]

Verification