Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PsyzhranV2" data-source="post: 7921105" data-attributes="member: 7015332">My linking that Reddit post was more to show that the dominant metanarrative, if you will excuse my use of the term, leans more towards the mechanics and the lore not being synonymous, and open for change as setting creators and even players see fit. It's not universal - there's plenty of disagreement about it in that thread - but it is, in my view, further evidence that the position you are expressing is a minority one.I am aware that this disagreement in the ideology and methodology of game design is probably irreconcilable, but that doesn't stop me from breathing fire and wanting to smash my computer about how far your head appears to be up somewhere unmentionable. Because I find that you are being very sanctimonious about how obviously right you must be and how stupid all of us must be. If you were in charge, my House Vadalis agent who wields Druidic power but couldn't give a darn about living in harmony with nature, instead viewing it as a resource to be controlled and exploited, wouldn't be valid, despite the idea being endorsed and even originated from Eberron's creator, a professional game designer who has worked with WotC in the past. So screw that.We are not arguing for tearing settings apart so that we can roleplay as time displaced Jedi. I have no idea where you got that idea. That's stupid. Everybody in this thread would agree that it's stupid. It's stupid.If we were talking about a game with a single, well-defined setting integrated into the rules, such as Deadlands or Eclipse Phase or Exalted or Shadowrun, I'd actually be agreeing with you on this topic. But Dungeons and Dragons is a system that lacks that. That's not to say that it is a truly generic system - go to GURPS for that - but the core rules are built so as to be able to be used in multiple settings without snapping in half. The Forgotten Realms, Ravnica, Eberron, and the upcoming Wildemount; the 5e system supports mechancially supports those settings despite them having wild amounts of differences between each other, to the point that the "default" presented in the PHB and the splats surely can't be one-fits-all. For Dungeons and Dragons to be able to support more than one setting, its mechanics and its "default" fluff must be able to be dissociated from each other to some extent, so that the mechanics can support the various settings released for it without irreparably contradicting one another.Not to mention that vast number of third party settings on the market - Midgard, Primeval Thule, Mists of Akuma, Odyssey of the Dragonlords, the list goes on and on. Hell, the Ptolus Kickstarter launch is on the front page of ENWorld right now! And it goes even farther when we get to the personal worlds of every DM creating a homebrew setting for themselves. Are those worlds using the 5e system a violation of some axiom of game design? Is playing them sacrilege against a cold, uncaring god? If it is, then let me be the devil.</blockquote>

Verification