Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4814641" data-attributes="member: 2205">Me too!Oh.&nbsp; Not me too.&nbsp; Mine is more Charles Dickens meets Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom meets H. P Lovecraft meets Sergio Leone's Old West.&nbsp; I think it's wahoo, but I don't see that as standing in opposition to internal consistency, darkness or grittiness or whatever.Whuh?&nbsp; Huh?&nbsp; How is that disconnected from the setting?&nbsp; It's not disconnected from the setting if your setting is designed specifically with &quot;wahoo&quot; in it. Let's look at a concrete example.&nbsp; It's simple, but it's real, and it seems to have been a wahoo! threshold for a lot of gamers, as evidenced by the continued hue and cry over them.&nbsp; Dragonborn and tieflings.&nbsp; Not traditional races.&nbsp; But does that mean that they're disconnected from the rest of the setting in which they appear?&nbsp; That seems to me to be a ludicrous claim.&nbsp; The baseline 4e hint of setting includes past dragonborn empires, dragonborn as related to and associated with dragons, a past tiefling empire, and tieflings as related to and associated with fiends.&nbsp; Fiends and dragons being time-honored game elements already in their own rights.See, I don't see any reason why the increase in &quot;wahoo! factor&quot; means that suddenly things don't make sense internally.&nbsp; That is, of course, unless your baseline setting assumption is basically &quot;Merry Olde England... except with elves, dwarves and an occasional dragon.&quot;&nbsp; But if your wahoo! races and classes are written into the setting as integral elements, then there's no reason why there has to be disconnect, or lack of consistency or &quot;realism.&quot;&nbsp; Where by realism what I really mean is verisimilitude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 4814641, member: 2205"] Me too! Oh. Not me too. Mine is more Charles Dickens meets Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom meets H. P Lovecraft meets Sergio Leone's Old West. I think it's wahoo, but I don't see that as standing in opposition to internal consistency, darkness or grittiness or whatever. Whuh? Huh? How is that disconnected from the setting? It's not disconnected from the setting if your setting is designed specifically with "wahoo" in it. Let's look at a concrete example. It's simple, but it's real, and it seems to have been a wahoo! threshold for a lot of gamers, as evidenced by the continued hue and cry over them. Dragonborn and tieflings. Not traditional races. But does that mean that they're disconnected from the rest of the setting in which they appear? That seems to me to be a ludicrous claim. The baseline 4e hint of setting includes past dragonborn empires, dragonborn as related to and associated with dragons, a past tiefling empire, and tieflings as related to and associated with fiends. Fiends and dragons being time-honored game elements already in their own rights. See, I don't see any reason why the increase in "wahoo! factor" means that suddenly things don't make sense internally. That is, of course, unless your baseline setting assumption is basically "Merry Olde England... except with elves, dwarves and an occasional dragon." But if your wahoo! races and classes are written into the setting as integral elements, then there's no reason why there has to be disconnect, or lack of consistency or "realism." Where by realism what I really mean is verisimilitude. [/QUOTE]

Verification