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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6395026" data-attributes="member: 42582">What is the nature of the confusion? Anyone who tries to do what you describe already knows that the archons in pre-4e material aren't the same as the archons in the 4e material. So how would s/he get confused?Certainy, no one in this thread is confused - you're not, I'm not, no other poster is either as far as I can tell. Where have you encountered all these confused people?Of course it was avoidable, but for whatever reason the designers chose not to avoid it. My point is that this doesn't "muddy" anything. I have never met a person, either in real life or posting online, who thought that the elemental archons of 4e were intended as substitutes/an evolution of the LG archons of MotP and other pre-4e material.It's a simple case of different things sharing the same name, just like titans in AD&D.Not at all. Eladrins in 4e clearly are intended to fill the same story niche as pre-4e eladrins. They even use the same titles (Ghaele, Bralani etc)."Unnecessary complication" is in the eye of the beholder. For some of us, it is a useful simplification. 4e already blurs the lines between mortality and immortality, both as part of its lore (eg the Raven Queen, Bane and Vecna all once were mortals) and as part of its mechanics, with PCs becoming demigods as a natural part of their development. In this context, re-conceptualising the pre-4e eladrin as powerful members of the Fey court is an attempt at presenting the old material in its best light.X-Men First Class combines the original X-Men story in which Magneto takes over a military base and launches its missiles with later Claremont-era material about the Hellfire Club. This is not "unnecessarily complicated" either. It's also an attempt at repackaging the old material as best it can be done.There's obvious scope for disagreement about whether the designers have succeeded in their aims, in either case. But I think it's obvious what they are trying to do.That's not in disupte. I am not misunderstanding what other people are doing. I'm expressing disagreement with it. For the sorts of reasons [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] articulated upthread, I think it is a detriment for the game to prioritise those sorts of details over theme and broad story function.That eladrin come from the CG upper planes, and look like but are not elves, is part of an encyclopedia entry but it is not a guide to game play. That eladrin are mercurial, magical elven creatures who are aloof though generally benevolent tells me something about the role they can play in a game. I think it is a strength in RPG design to prioritise theme and story function over encylopedia-entry details.The Planescape cosmology was not a default in 1st ed AD&D, which had no Concordant Opposition until DDG was published (so there are two possible interpretations of the Great Wheel already), had no Sigil, no "Gate Towns" and no obsession with portals in the Planescape fashion.I have already posted upthread, and will post again, that I do not find any great change between AD&D and 4e. Demogorgon, Orcus, Graz'zt, the archdevils, are all there playing much the same role that they always did. The changes are no greater than the changes between 1st ed AD&D and Planescape, which entirely repurposes daemons from a form of demon that lives on Hades and has slightly obscure magic resistance rules, to Machiavellian masterminds of a Blood War that did not even exist prior to 2nd ed AD&D.4e's daemons - being treated simply as variant demons - is much truer to Gygax's use of them in D3 than the Planescape approach.That's fine for those people. Others of us, especially under Tolkienesque influences, saw the distinction as being drawn already in the 1st ed AD&D MM, with its various "subraces", and then reinforced in Dragonlance and other material.I'm not touching on that at all. No where have I suggested that D&D is a generic fantasy game. 4e doesn't present a "generic" setting - it presents a very particular setting, designed to support a certain version of classic D&D play, which will also be able to handle practical matters like the perennial balance tensions between martial and magical PCs (eg by explicitly allowing martial PCs to become demigods).What you seem not to realise is that, for me (and I believe not only me) 4e made good on, and deivered better on, D&D's assumptions than earlier presentations of the D&D cosmology.You may have a different opinion about whether or not 4e succeeded in this respect, but for my purposes that is irrelevant. My point is that the 4e designers didn't set out to change or depart from assumptions. They set out to make good on them. The process is discussed in some detail, for a range of different story and setting elements, in Worlds & Monsters.</blockquote>

Verification