Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6396098" data-attributes="member: 2067">I mean, how small is the nit you want to pick? It's largely the same in 2e and 3e aside form developing &quot;black and hard as metal&quot; to being explicitly iron, and turning the &quot;squares&quot; into &quot;shards&quot; (which is sort of academic at a certain point anyway), and in either case it clearly isn't a place of post-apocalyptic cities.You could have post-apocalyptic cities on it if you wanted, even a whole CONTINENT of them, layered in dust and earth with on an isolated surface somewhere out in the void far away from any others, so that the distinction is largely one of perspective. I believe the intent was to show how PS-specific lore limits creativity in the current age of D&amp;D, and &quot;I can't make Acheron a plane of post-apocalyptic cities&quot; doesn't show that very well since the lore that limits that isn't PS-specific. Maybe there's something else that shows it, I dunno. I've never found PS lore to be any more limiting than general &quot;generic&quot; D&amp;D lore (which I do find to be limiting if one is made to play within its bounds). My own case is that I'd like a more 3e-Manual-of-the-Planes approach to cosmology that embraces difference and presumes nothing is sacred rather than a 4e-One-True-Story approach to it where every setting needs to have a Feywild because D&amp;D always has a Feywild. And the 5e PHB is a little disappointing in that respect (though maybe the 5e Manual of the Planes will be even better! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6396098, member: 2067"] I mean, how small is the nit you want to pick? It's largely the same in 2e and 3e aside form developing "black and hard as metal" to being explicitly iron, and turning the "squares" into "shards" (which is sort of academic at a certain point anyway), and in either case it clearly isn't a place of post-apocalyptic cities. You could have post-apocalyptic cities on it if you wanted, even a whole CONTINENT of them, layered in dust and earth with on an isolated surface somewhere out in the void far away from any others, so that the distinction is largely one of perspective. I believe the intent was to show how PS-specific lore limits creativity in the current age of D&D, and "I can't make Acheron a plane of post-apocalyptic cities" doesn't show that very well since the lore that limits that isn't PS-specific. Maybe there's something else that shows it, I dunno. I've never found PS lore to be any more limiting than general "generic" D&D lore (which I do find to be limiting if one is made to play within its bounds). My own case is that I'd like a more 3e-Manual-of-the-Planes approach to cosmology that embraces difference and presumes nothing is sacred rather than a 4e-One-True-Story approach to it where every setting needs to have a Feywild because D&D always has a Feywild. And the 5e PHB is a little disappointing in that respect (though maybe the 5e Manual of the Planes will be even better! :) ). [/QUOTE]

Verification