Yeah, BG3 doesn't have witches that eat children. WotC doesDifferent vibes though. BG3 goes a but further.
As I said its more similar to 3.5 and early Pathfinder in tone.
Yeah, BG3 doesn't have witches that eat children. WotC doesDifferent vibes though. BG3 goes a but further.
As I said its more similar to 3.5 and early Pathfinder in tone.
In my developer days, I was always really happy when someone else put out a game book that covered things overlapping with what I was handling, but in ways I didn’t think we could do well and didn’t want to botch. It freed me from feeling obliged to try some anyway.That's kinda what 3PP are there for (amongst many other things). 3PP can do things that WotC doesn't want to touch for one reason or another.
Nobody actually believes that. Anyone rhat claims that is just gaslighting for their soft and safe twee D&D preference.
I mean, BG3 does have a hag that does eat a child, but she's honestly played much more for laughs than for horror. You throw a potion at her to make her vomit up the kid.Yeah, BG3 doesn't have witches that eat children. WotC does
Well that's the problem with DMs banning whole books carte blanche. I might not have liked the twilight cleric, but that was no reason to ban the necessary ranger updates, the better summon spells, and the lineage rules. But a lot of DMS toss the infants away with the dirty water.
Sexual taboos, I assume.Like BG3 is such a goofy game with its tongue so firmly within its cheek that I'm not sure where this whole "BG3's popularity proves people still want dark and edgy!" take is coming from.
Mostly, I think it's just people seeing what they want to see.Like BG3 is such a goofy game with its tongue so firmly within its cheek that I'm not sure where this whole "BG3's popularity proves people still want dark and edgy!" take is coming from.
Yeah, BG3 doesn't have witches that eat children. WotC does
How do we know a PG rated BG3 wouldn't have sold even better?