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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6388441" data-attributes="member: 71756">I can understand not wanting every campaign setting to have the same cosmology. That makes sense to a certain degree, particularly since the planes have very little to do with D&D adventures at lower levels (unless you're playing Planescape or some similar setting). I can also understand not wanting to feel like the lore in the core rulebooks invalidates other interpretations.But I don't really understand the idea that you wouldn't want lore in the rulebooks in the first place, because it might differ with your own adventure or campaign's interpretation. That just doesn't make sense to me. The D&D rulebooks have always held certain assumptions about the world they exist within and frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way. We can differ over which lore we like better - whether dwarves were the slaves of giants or have an adversarial relationship with goblinoids - but I'm getting the increasing sense some people would rather there was no lore at all if it wasn't the lore they preferred. And that strikes me as both really adversarial and (assuming WotC followed through) really boring reading for splatbooks.I buy D&D books about half and half for their gameplay value and the fluff. I may or may not be a typical player in that regard but I don't think I'm that unusual. A lot of people - as this thread has shown beyond a doubt - care immensely about how different races fit into a generic D&D world, regardless of setting. In light of that, he idea that we might be better off with an endless list of multiple choice origins or no origins at all strikes me as pretty absurd. Honestly, I'd rather have lore I don't like as much than no lore at all.</blockquote>

Verification