Search results

I'll have to take your word for it (not familiar with Runequest, or M&M 2e, although the latter seems similar enough that a bunch of folks online do conversions without too much trouble apparently).

I laughing emoji'd so hard here I almost cried emoji.

Can you provide an example?

I just want your character's culture and background to inform them, just like it does for everyone in real life.

Like @Bill Zebub said then, I guess we're not allowed to wander off topic then? Because I wasn't directly answering the OP's post in my response to you.

Yup. Everyone comes from somewhere.

James Marsters' Milton Fine from Smallville is far and away my favorite BRAINInteractiveConstruct. Just finished watching season 5 and he really holds up.

That's not what I said. I said I want more than, "I thought it was cool", if that characterization flies in the face of the setting lore for that species and the player can't be bothered to come up with a single in-setting reason as to why. And I'm to work with the player and help them find that...

My point is that sometimes enough changes are made that calling the result a "new edition" is IMO a poor definition of what you've actually done, which is make a new game with similar terminology and the same name. If you don't go that far with your changes (like 3.5 or 5.5), and in particular...

Than ultimately what they brought to the table was desirable for you, because you valued it more than not having to deal with the irritating things they do.

If you choose to play a species that has a particular place in the lore of the setting in which you are playing, but you also choose to ignore that lore in your own characterization, I'm going to want an in-setting explanation why or I'm going to be irritated. Call that gatekeeping if you want...

Not sure I understand. That all seems like a practicality issue to me. Do you believe this, or is this your "speaking on behalf of others" thing?

What last two games were those? I've seen plenty of modern games that use "edition" in the same way 1e to 2e did (mostly compatible but with some changes) but not like 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e did (different games).

As @Morrus said above, ownership does not give you the right to make everyone agree with your idiosyncratic definitions and interpretations, but using money to control the narrative unfortunately (IMO) often does. Also per Morrus's suggestion I'm not going to go into why I disagree with WotC's...

And as was said above, that assumes socialization is the primary goal for at least the majority of the group. Often the game is the main reason we're all here, or at often enough that assuming it's mostly an excuse to socialize shouldn't be our first thought.

Not practical? Sure. Not desirable? I'm not sure how.

Don't I know it. The unfairness of money letting people control the narrative extends far beyond what we're allowed to talk about here.

It's the second thing, where everyone just goes along with WotC's advertising as if that's the way it's supposed to be for the whole hobby because they have the most money, that I see as a problem.

Apparently WotC is allowed to call what they do whatever they want, and everyone else is supposed to just agree and follow suit.

Using "*" is helpful on mobile devices where it's harder to highlight.