Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6399522" data-attributes="member: 48965">Yeah my issue in following this entire discussion is that the definition of what is meant by &quot;change&quot; as well as the &quot;type&quot; of change doesn't seem to be consistent in this conversation.&nbsp; I'm again unsure what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] actually means by it (especially since I and others see plenty of themes, hooks, etc. for dynamic play in the Planescape setting but because he can't it's a failing of the setting as opposed to a failing on his part, especially since he's never read the campaign materials) or how 4e encapsulates a &quot;dynamic&quot; setting any more than Planescape does (especially if we limit it to a few modules as our primary source of reference)... I guess because it has a codified history? (Of course when talking about his own campaign he mentions how he forsakes world maps and tolkien-like timelines???)&nbsp; I'm also unsure of the line that determines what conflicts provide &quot;dramatic heft&quot; and which conflicts don't since again it seems like an arbitrary distinction based on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s preferences as opposed to a firm line that we can measure against. I do however agree with your post that what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems to be speaking to is meta-plot and while Faction War is an example of it and as I said split the Planescape community&nbsp; I think perhaps an alternate version of Planescape based of Faction War could focus on the (remaining) factions as renegade organizations fighting to re-establish themselves and their ideals in Sigil and the multiverse.&nbsp; As to my personal preference... well I prefer the original version myself as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 6399522, member: 48965"] Yeah my issue in following this entire discussion is that the definition of what is meant by "change" as well as the "type" of change doesn't seem to be consistent in this conversation. I'm again unsure what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] actually means by it (especially since I and others see plenty of themes, hooks, etc. for dynamic play in the Planescape setting but because he can't it's a failing of the setting as opposed to a failing on his part, especially since he's never read the campaign materials) or how 4e encapsulates a "dynamic" setting any more than Planescape does (especially if we limit it to a few modules as our primary source of reference)... I guess because it has a codified history? (Of course when talking about his own campaign he mentions how he forsakes world maps and tolkien-like timelines???) I'm also unsure of the line that determines what conflicts provide "dramatic heft" and which conflicts don't since again it seems like an arbitrary distinction based on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s preferences as opposed to a firm line that we can measure against. I do however agree with your post that what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems to be speaking to is meta-plot and while Faction War is an example of it and as I said split the Planescape community I think perhaps an alternate version of Planescape based of Faction War could focus on the (remaining) factions as renegade organizations fighting to re-establish themselves and their ideals in Sigil and the multiverse. As to my personal preference... well I prefer the original version myself as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification