Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 3686244" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Well, with all due respect to the members that believe that the City of Union is &quot;Broken&quot;; &quot;Weak&quot;; &quot;Hopelessly Boring&quot;--and so on--I have to say that I disagree. I think Colonel Hardisson has it right. The City of Union is fine, at the end of the day. What did many members really *expect* such an entry--in the ELH--to really *be*? Bottom line, they only have so many pages that they could devote to different topics, and a close reading of the Union material--as I did again last evening--shows exactly that: The City of Union is a quick, generic, sketch-pad of a place for DM's to use quickly as is, when they need someplace different or weird for epic level players to go--or the DM can eff with it to properly tailor it to their own campaign. That's all the City of Union was ever meant to be, or do. It is merely a quick, rough sketchpad. I got that impression early on--from the authors own commentary--and as I reviewed further, nothing in the City of Union surprised me. It was all pretty basic, generic stuff, ready for me to rip into and make unique.By the way, I did just that. I spent about six hours writing up a whole new palette for the City of Union to fit into. I now have a interesting, epic-level planar city that players can visit, and jump into all kinds of strange adventures! It wasn't that hard, really. So, I don't know. I think some of you guys kinda had far too high expectations. Or maybe you didn't get the same concepts I did from a close reading of the introductory material for Union. Union *can't* be like &quot;Planescape&quot;--because Union doesn't have a whole game-line devoted to developing it--Union had what? 20 pages? maybe a few more or less? That's not much to work with, in all fairness.Cheers though!Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SHARK, post: 3686244, member: 1131"] Greetings! Well, with all due respect to the members that believe that the City of Union is "Broken"; "Weak"; "Hopelessly Boring"--and so on--I have to say that I disagree. I think Colonel Hardisson has it right. The City of Union is fine, at the end of the day. What did many members really *expect* such an entry--in the ELH--to really *be*? Bottom line, they only have so many pages that they could devote to different topics, and a close reading of the Union material--as I did again last evening--shows exactly that: The City of Union is a quick, generic, sketch-pad of a place for DM's to use quickly as is, when they need someplace different or weird for epic level players to go--or the DM can eff with it to properly tailor it to their own campaign. That's all the City of Union was ever meant to be, or do. It is merely a quick, rough sketchpad. I got that impression early on--from the authors own commentary--and as I reviewed further, nothing in the City of Union surprised me. It was all pretty basic, generic stuff, ready for me to rip into and make unique. By the way, I did just that. I spent about six hours writing up a whole new palette for the City of Union to fit into. I now have a interesting, epic-level planar city that players can visit, and jump into all kinds of strange adventures! It wasn't that hard, really. So, I don't know. I think some of you guys kinda had far too high expectations. Or maybe you didn't get the same concepts I did from a close reading of the introductory material for Union. Union *can't* be like "Planescape"--because Union doesn't have a whole game-line devoted to developing it--Union had what? 20 pages? maybe a few more or less? That's not much to work with, in all fairness. Cheers though! Semper Fidelis, SHARK [/QUOTE]

Verification