Re: Enemy in Shadows: Thoughts and reactions
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:18 pm
I'm with macd21 on this one. Having it there just to modify or ignore is a waste of word count IMHO.
You also have the opposite issue to what someone said earlier. Some GM's see a date and have a hard time altering it. Played in a D&D Forgotten Realms game a couple decades back where the GM "couldn't" run a few of the adventures because they either "already happened" or "hadn't happened yet". He knew, conceptually, that it was his world and it was up to him but wasn't willing to play around with the timeline much. He wanted to keep things as closer to published as possible to make the use of future products "easier". YMMV.
Personally, I could take it out leave it. Maybe, if they advance the overall calendar several years during the run of the game, an updated timeline with it's "canonical" happening I could see, but other that that....*shrug*
Just my two pence.
You also have the opposite issue to what someone said earlier. Some GM's see a date and have a hard time altering it. Played in a D&D Forgotten Realms game a couple decades back where the GM "couldn't" run a few of the adventures because they either "already happened" or "hadn't happened yet". He knew, conceptually, that it was his world and it was up to him but wasn't willing to play around with the timeline much. He wanted to keep things as closer to published as possible to make the use of future products "easier". YMMV.
Personally, I could take it out leave it. Maybe, if they advance the overall calendar several years during the run of the game, an updated timeline with it's "canonical" happening I could see, but other that that....*shrug*
Just my two pence.