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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Echohawk" data-source="post: 9166725" data-attributes="member: 9849">I enjoyed Faction War (and, for that matter, Die Vecna Die which took a similar let's-blow-up-the-setting approach just with multiple settings at once) but I wasn't using them as game products, I was treating them more as interesting and inspiring fiction from which I could steal ideas for my own campaigns. I have a soft spot for stories built around world changing events. But having admitted that, I don't mind at all that the new set ignores 99% of those events (The Mind's Eye being the 1%). I think Sigil is a much more interesting place before the events of Faction War than after it. I also think that it would have been foolish for WotC to make any effort to justify that decision in the new product given how few of the people purchasing it are likely to care. I get that Micah (and others) would like any changes to established lore to be supported by in-setting explanations, but even TSR wasn't consistent at doing that, and WotC has gone from making some effort to do so in 3rd Edition to not really bothering at all in 4th Edition and 5th Edition. Expectations of in-game reasons for continuity changes is a ship that sailed long, long ago, so it is probably not necessary to remind us of a preference for that approach more than once per thread. However, I would definitely have appreciated one of the behind-the-scenes interviews with the designers addressing this topic. I'm interested in the thinking behind decisions on what to include (and not include) from previous editions' lore when settings are being relaunched, and that seems like it would be a reasonable bone to toss to folks who do have an appreciation for past setting lore. (If this did come up in any of the marketing videos, I missed it.)</blockquote>

Verification