Search results

Yeah, OK, I suppose that makes some sense. From where I sit, it had to be someone with enough understanding of the OGL to have a problem with it. Even if it did come from Hasbro, there is still the fact Cocks "doesn't really understand the gaming space" enough to explain why it's a dumb idea...

Am I missing something? Why are we shocked that the CEO was involved in a major decision?

I was responding to you asking why someone would avoid videos pitching games as "different from D&D" or for "moving on from D&D."

Maybe they just prefer an assessment of a game on it's own merits, rather than a comparison to D&D? And, as a bonus, they are at least a little more likely to avoid anti-D&D axe-grinding. On a purely practical level, any review comparing a game to D&D 5e would be of very limited value to me...

I have played a lot of different games over my time. And while I probably will get around to reading a GM guidance section at some point if I remain interested in the game long enough, it's generally the last thing I bother with. I will probably give it a skim on my first complete read through...

I refer you to my previous post regarding how interested I am (or am not) in arguing semantics.

Sure, there will always be times when you fill in background details that weren't already established. Flashbacks in the context we're discussing here revolve around filling in those details in a way that is specifically designed to influence the present in a non-causal way. I can't really be...

Usually, but not always, my preferred playstyle is one where players have control over their characters in the present, and explore a world from the perspective of those characters. Giving a player the ability to alter the nature of the world or the past is simply not in keeping with that style...

My counterpoint is simple: Does allowing flashbacks change the way players interact with the world? Clearly, the answer is yes. In that case, if people don't want a game where that style of interaction is accepted, then they can clearly be a negative. Your flashback doesn't just change the...

It is just personal preference. Flashback mechanics are not some objective good that must be included in everyone's game, and can never negatively impact play, no matter how much you might like it to be otherwise. If no one else at the table wants a game involving a flashback mechanic, you...

Personally, I have fun watching my players plan heists, and they typically enjoy doing the planning. If things start to drag, we move everything along, and there is typically an underlying assumption that the PCs are competent, so I'm not going to spring a gotcha on them over something a...

You have just shown that you will always be happy to have a flashback mechanic. In no way have you shown that everyone should always enjoy flashback mechanics, or at least not mind them. Some people like playing games where they only have control of their character, in the moment. And if their...

The problem I have with people preaching "play more games" is the lack of honesty about it. People have a responsibility to the hobby or the industry to ensure it remains strong and that a wide range of games are produced and creators are supported. No, I have a responsibility to the other...

I don't have the slightest little bit of interest in 5e D&D. But I am perfectly OK if some people want to talk about it on their Youtube channel, and I'm also OK if they don't want to talk about Fate. I also see no reason to demand (or even politely ask, for that matter) that GinniD talks about...

My impression is that it's different enough to both to ensure they please as few people as possible.

It doesn't even need to be the "D&D sphere". The list of games I'm likely to run in coming years is: Mythras (modern): Significantly more complex than the RQ games it grew out of. A tool kit, requiring multiple dials and settings to be tweaked prior to play. WFRP 4e: (modern): Significantly...

Sure, but I don't think anyone is talking about unlimited trust, and no one engaged this discussion in good faith interprets trust in this context to mean, "I trust this person to always make the best possible decision, no matter how high the stakes, how high the pressure, how quickly a decision...

No gaming sounds a lot better to me than gaming with people I don't trust. Clearly some people feel differently, but I don't get it.

As I recall, the main mathematical issue with the system is that a stat of +3 had a pretty dramatic effect, especially when it was in Dex, and it was relatively easy to acquire. The game played best with stat values no higher than +2, possibly allowing a +3 for absolutely elite, best-of-the-best.

I remain confused that so many people are OK playing games with GMs they don't trust.