Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7632383" data-attributes="member: 5100">Maybe I wasn't clear. Obviously, WotC has the legal right to do what they want and they've made many moves to unify the settings. There is definitely some call for multi-verse spanning games within the larger D&D meta-setting and I can see why they'd want to cash in on it. That's why Planescape, for example, doesn't really bother me. It's not my thing and I appreciate that it's easy enough to ignore.When 5E was released, about my only real issue with it (maybe two issues, depending on how you cut it) was that the Realms was the single core setting and that WotC was projecting an image that what was true for the Realms was true for all settings. For the last couple years, they seem to have pulled back from that stance and I really hope it continues. I think D&D is, and always has been, at its best when it offers itself as a toolbox for individual games to draw from and is weaker when it tries to provide a single "truth" about things. There are reasons I like Greyhawk and dislike the Realms. I don't want to play Greyhawk as the Realms with different geography. Eberron and Dark Sun are their own things and don't really play well with crystal spheres are links to Sigil. Trying to wedge those in doesn't add value to the properties.Back when there was a lot of talk about a new D&D movie, my stance was consistent with this. The idea of a "D&D story" is silly. D&D is a game system. The brand has value in that regard. The Realms have plenty of stories worth telling. Krynn/Dragonlance have plenty of stories worth telling. Greyhawk has plenty of stories worth telling. So on and so forth. Any of those stories could in movies or books or video games. They could also be told using the D&D game system, but they would be just as meaningful, as stories, if told with Savage Worlds, Hero, or Fate.</blockquote>

Verification