Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6394164" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Who is confused?</p><p></p><p>You don't seem to be. Nor does [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION]. I am not (and I have a copy of Jeff Grubb's MotP, which I bought and where I first read about archons in 1987).</p><p></p><p>James Ward's DDG repurposed the concept of "Titan" to describe the mostly evil proto-gods of Greek Myth (as opposed to the mostly noble and generous quasi-divine giants of the 1st ed D&D MM). Somewhere - I think in Jeff Grubb's MotP - there was a brief explanation of how the word "Titan" did double duty. I don't think many people suffered from serious confusion.</p><p></p><p>To whom are you making this explanation? Players who have read the 4e MM (or are using Arcane Power to build a summoning wizard), and hence have learned what 4e archons are, but who aren't familiar with the prior material, but with whom you want to use the prior material? How many players are in that category? How many times did you have this problem in the course of your 4e campaigns?</p><p></p><p>Until your post I hadn't even turned my mind to this confusion issue, but now that I have I don't see that confusion is going to be very rife.</p><p></p><p>I don't know very much about the ins-and-outs of FR lore either pre- or post-4e.</p><p></p><p>But personally, I don't see a major difference between "celestial race" (= magical race with a few bells and whistles) of pseudo-elves with intrinsic ties to CG deities, and "magical race" with intrinsic ties to the deities of Arvandor (which was, in Planescape-oriented presentations, a CG plane).</p><p></p><p>It isn't <em>certainly</em> more than just a representation of the same material. What is changing the nature of a mercurial, magical elven race from "celestial" to "fey" <em>but</em> a new presentation of earlier material? It is not making up something new from whole cloth.</p><p></p><p>There's room for discussion about how faithful West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet, and whether the change in the ending is better, worse or just different - but to say that because the setting is moved from Italy to NYC it simply can't count as a reworking of the older material would be silly. Being set in Italy, rather than NYC, just isn't so integral to Romeo and Juliet that you can't keep the gist yet lose that feature. My view is that identifying the essence of Eladrin with game-mechanical concepts like "celestial" rather than "fey", as opposed to story/thematic concepts like "mercurial, otherworldly elven beings" which are preserved in 4e, is precisely the sort of thing I talked about upthread: a focus on minor details rather than thematic resonance and story function.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure that's true. But that doesn't rebut my point. From my point of view it might rather be a confirmation of it.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, D&D isn't a "published campaign setting": it is not a work of fiction. The story elements published in the core D&D books - monsters, PC backgrounds and classes, etc - are intended for use by D&D players to create their own works of fiction. (Of course, some players aren't as interested in the story elements as the more nitty-gritty challenge elements, which is fine too.) At most, they carry hints of theme or content for players to pick up and adapt to their own purposes. (See eg the interesting current thread "Evil enough", about tiefling warlock backstory.) In presenting this sort of stuff, it's fine for designers to be inspired by what came before but I at least want them to produce the best that they can. Not simply to republish a recap of what came before with a few extra additions, like some never-ending chain novel. People who love the old versions still have their old books to read.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6394164, member: 42582"] Who is confused? You don't seem to be. Nor does [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION]. I am not (and I have a copy of Jeff Grubb's MotP, which I bought and where I first read about archons in 1987). James Ward's DDG repurposed the concept of "Titan" to describe the mostly evil proto-gods of Greek Myth (as opposed to the mostly noble and generous quasi-divine giants of the 1st ed D&D MM). Somewhere - I think in Jeff Grubb's MotP - there was a brief explanation of how the word "Titan" did double duty. I don't think many people suffered from serious confusion. To whom are you making this explanation? Players who have read the 4e MM (or are using Arcane Power to build a summoning wizard), and hence have learned what 4e archons are, but who aren't familiar with the prior material, but with whom you want to use the prior material? How many players are in that category? How many times did you have this problem in the course of your 4e campaigns? Until your post I hadn't even turned my mind to this confusion issue, but now that I have I don't see that confusion is going to be very rife. I don't know very much about the ins-and-outs of FR lore either pre- or post-4e. But personally, I don't see a major difference between "celestial race" (= magical race with a few bells and whistles) of pseudo-elves with intrinsic ties to CG deities, and "magical race" with intrinsic ties to the deities of Arvandor (which was, in Planescape-oriented presentations, a CG plane). It isn't [I]certainly[/I] more than just a representation of the same material. What is changing the nature of a mercurial, magical elven race from "celestial" to "fey" [I]but[/I] a new presentation of earlier material? It is not making up something new from whole cloth. There's room for discussion about how faithful West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet, and whether the change in the ending is better, worse or just different - but to say that because the setting is moved from Italy to NYC it simply can't count as a reworking of the older material would be silly. Being set in Italy, rather than NYC, just isn't so integral to Romeo and Juliet that you can't keep the gist yet lose that feature. My view is that identifying the essence of Eladrin with game-mechanical concepts like "celestial" rather than "fey", as opposed to story/thematic concepts like "mercurial, otherworldly elven beings" which are preserved in 4e, is precisely the sort of thing I talked about upthread: a focus on minor details rather than thematic resonance and story function. I'm sure that's true. But that doesn't rebut my point. From my point of view it might rather be a confirmation of it. Furthermore, D&D isn't a "published campaign setting": it is not a work of fiction. The story elements published in the core D&D books - monsters, PC backgrounds and classes, etc - are intended for use by D&D players to create their own works of fiction. (Of course, some players aren't as interested in the story elements as the more nitty-gritty challenge elements, which is fine too.) At most, they carry hints of theme or content for players to pick up and adapt to their own purposes. (See eg the interesting current thread "Evil enough", about tiefling warlock backstory.) In presenting this sort of stuff, it's fine for designers to be inspired by what came before but I at least want them to produce the best that they can. Not simply to republish a recap of what came before with a few extra additions, like some never-ending chain novel. People who love the old versions still have their old books to read. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Multiverse is back....
Top