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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6010300" data-attributes="member: 1465">I would be most likely in the second camp. For me the first version of a setting is typically always the best in fluff terms, it's fresh ideas and creativity. Every time FR was reset due to edition change, there were some interesting additions but also lots of forced changes, trite plot advancement tricks (another magic crisis/apocalypse, sigh...), and the cancellation of a few things that certainly were someone's favourite. Therefore, I would definitely like that the settings itself (the core ideas, how things work, the world locations, the famous characters, the powers that be, the creatures, religions and afterlife, the technology era...) would just never change. Then each gaming group uses the setting as a "sandbox" and can create their own alternate timeline, so that Faerun evolves in a way shaped by the DM and influenced by the PCs. My point is that if love a setting, I am probably going to love it whatever rules system I use. Then I might love a rule system and hate another, or at least have a favourite editions which suits our "playstyle" best. But it is a loss of freedom, if my choice of rule system also dictates a "version" of the setting and it's too hard to make your choice on ruleset and setting version indipendently.Theoretically there exists a solution: to publish separate books of fluff vs crunch. Or even publish only books of fluff, and release setting-specific crunch in digital form (core crunch of a new edition and setting-free supplements still being published of course).Then if they don't want to do it because it's economically inconvenient, they just have to accept that they will alienate part of the fanbase, period.</blockquote>

Verification