Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kurtomatic" data-source="post: 5170444" data-attributes="member: 85486">This isn't about editions. I thought the Blood War was boring and contrived when they first rolled it out in 2E, and nothing I've seen in any edition before or since has changed that. The assertion that the Blood War 'explains' why the fiends haven't 'taken over' is the iconic root of its phony, unconvincing narrative in my opinion. Just one contrivance stacked upon another.You know how there was always those bits of D&D content that seem silly, ridiculous, or even embarrassing? You accept the presence of these annoying ideas as the cost of engaging with all the game has to offer, but you segregate parts of the game into a bucket of Things To Ignore, or otherwise minimize or change completely for your personal game. The tricky bit is, we don't all have the same stuff in that bucket. No edition of D&D is unscathed by this.The Blood War has had plenty of ink spilled over it, and anyone that wants to engage that narrative has source material to work with. I've had similar doubts about the Faction War, but I can see that one both ways, and I share in the disappointment that we'll never see the intended conclusion. Ongoing metaplot is tricky business, and the risks require a pretty high reward. I'm not sure the Faction War was a wise investment in that regard, but without seeing the whole picture its hard to say.</blockquote>