Search results

I genuinely sometimes wonder whether WotC is actually designing a game meant to be played by people who will look at the rules and do what the rules demonstrate is useful.....or if they're designing a game expecting some hypothetical player which completely ignores what the rules reward and just...

I'd say there's no "seems" about it. It is a wild stance. Bonus actions serve a vital function, just as their predecessors, Minor and Swift actions, did. Sometimes, you want to be able to do a thing as a ride-along thing people can attempt to do, but you don't want to allow 17 different...

Two thoughts. Firstly, you invoke the supreme creative freedom, and yet what do people keep doing, over and over and over again? The same old incredibly tired, incredibly over-used old-school stuff. There isn't that much interest in being "just a little bit unique". A setting where the primary...

A notion I somewhat like for species/subspecies design is to have some part which is a common baseline, something distinctive, and then another part which is flexible on the basis of subspecies. So, to use Dragonborn as an example, the obvious baseline features definitely need to include Dragon...

Okay. Why do tortles or dragonborn (or whatever) cause you so much pain/disgust/upset/whatever that that would "ruin your fun" if a single player played one? That, to me, looks quite petty. Like "it's MY playhouse, MY rules, NOBODY can play with that toy here!!!!"

Never saw that myself, it was literally a surprise on this page to me. I have consistently been using "dislike" in its ordinary, colloquial sense of "I don't particularly like that" or "I have a mild negative opinion of that". But oh, remember that natural language ensures we can understand...

And the real argument seems to me that GMs believe they are entitled to ride roughshod over everyone else solely because they elected to take on the significant responsibility of GMing. Or, in other words, they feel entitled.

So, when you use the word "dislike", what you actually mean is "utter disgust"??? Is this...I just...what? What term WOULD you use for something you just don't like, but which you also don't, in your words, "dislike"? Because it seems to me you've defined yourself into a corner where you cannot...

Yep yep. I've used the word a lot just recently, but it absolutely flabbergasts me that someone could think, "I don't particularly care for this. Anyone who asks for this is not behaving like a decent human being." Like...goodness gracious, Lord Almighty, what kind of attitude is that? A teensy...

It's the favorite punching bag and you know it. Tortles were just brought up because when we all say what we're actually thinking, folks get all hung up on "why DRAGONBORN, why ALWAYS dragonborn?!?!" As you can see, no matter what we do, no matter how we approach it, every choice we make is...

Except that that's precisely what Max described would happen if anyone did. It would, in his own words, make you not a "decent human being" to want something your GM just kind of doesn't care for.

Or at the absolute least, you'd want to design it so that the top, say, six or eight most-played races are clearly given space for if players would want to pick them. Right? Like why would you intentionally design a setting knowing that you're excluding stuff folks are very likely to ask for...

Exactly. No one, as far as I can tell, is asking GMs to suffer through a campaign full of things they hate. Nobody. There was that one guy several threads back, but mod-voice put a stop to that. What folks like you and I are asking is, why on earth are GMs creating campaigns designed only to...

They immediately drop it of their own accord and never bring it up again. How can you ask questions, or try to find a way to make things work, if the instant you get even the slightest hint of disgruntlement, you immediately cast aside any interest you had and never even consider it again?

I didn't see you finding any issue with it either though. One should think that, if you find a position extreme and unwarranted, at least a "that seems kind of odd to me, could you explain more precisely what you mean?" would be in order. Unless you're ignoring Max, I suppose. Then you'd have...

1. Human, aka "wanderfolk". Variants: Earthfast (all IRL humans, default option), Starbound (elan, slann, Gallifreyans, Kryptonians, Kalashtar, etc.), and Dual-Blooded (those with one human parent and one other ancestry parent). 2. Elves, aka "feyfolk". Variants: Sun, Moon, Star, Void (read...

Aw crap, I'm sorry. I jump around between paragraphs while I write, and I totally forgot to complete that sentence. My preferred solution would be to place reasonable limits on PC-race flight, such that it being an always-on thing is either only for high level (say, 12+) characters, or only for...

Not at all. There are enormous swathes of FR that are barely detailed at all, and huge chunks of it can be significantly massaged into more or less whatever the GM wants. Maztica, for example. It was zorped over to Abeir during the Spellplague, and came back after the Second Sundering. It...

Are you serious, right now? I'm throwing fits? When it was LITERALLY said that even asking a question about playing something the GM isn't into would be considered a breach of friendship???

I wouldn't expect you to be friends very long if nobody ever tolerated discussion of anything that even one person might be the tiniest bit uncomfortable with. The world has things that will discomfit us in it. It is flabbergasting to me that anyone would treat that as "oh, because the GM...