Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 6398814" data-attributes="member: 71756">To be fair, I think this is a criticism that can be levied at most campaign settings, particularly those that only existed for a single edition. The changes in the Realms from 1e to 3e were relatively minor, aside from the Time of Troubles (which was a controversial event, although nowhere near to the extent of the Spellplague). And Eberron changed very little in its transition from 3e to 4e. It's nothing particular to Planescape and indeed it may be unfair to single it out since it only had one edition to shine, during which time few settings implement any major status quo changes.Incidentally, I also agree with you to a certain extent. I do think some change is good, though with shared universes it's best done cautiously and slowly (like the changes to the Marvel universe from the 1960s to now). To a certain extent I'm actually slightly annoyed at the amount of rollback the Sundering seems to be implementing - I agree with a fair amount of it but I would have preferred to see how some of the 4e elements could be rolled into a more traditional Realms (the sudden and inexplicable re-loss of Netheril seems particularly jarring).There's a time and place for contrivance and in the right setting it can be used for great dramatic effect (and coincidences do occasionally occur in real-life). But an over-reliance on contrivance, on things happening "just" the right way, does eventually undermine a narrative by making the stakes seem arbitrary: whenever something needs to happen, the plot makes it happen, even if it makes no sense. I have a lot more respect for authors who can bring events about events in a believable sequence with only a few "just-so" happenstances.It's comments like these, I think, that give a lot of people the impression you think fans of Planescape are having "badwrongfun."This all seems very melodramatic to me in addition to playing into a narrative trope I've been generally advised to avoid if at all possible... which is defining supporting characters (particularly female ones) solely by their relationship to the protagonist.Making the player's lover (whether it be a man or a woman) the "natural" target of the villain feels far too much like "damseling" or "fridging" for my tastes. Besides which: am I going to do that for every player? I realize this is but one example but providing such an intimate narrative where the villain is a personal adversary of every single PC isn't terribly practical and I don't think is one that a lot of players would really want. My experience suggests that, in most cases, players don't actually like to be burdened with a lot of specific relationships and specific motives: they like to figure things out as they go.I'm not sure how much more "real" a conflict centered on a (fantastical) serial killer seducing your wife is then one centered on a clash of (fantastical) ideologies. Personally, I feel I'm much more likely to encounter the latter than the former, at least in mundane, non-fantastical form.There's no objective proof that most of our values have any intrinsic meaning (I believe some do, but where's my proof?). Does that mean sacrifice is meaningless in our world?</blockquote>

Verification