Recent content by Arevashti

I seem to have missed where he actually said any such thing about 4e, as opposed to having said something basically neutral that simply seems to be a disproportionately large berserk button. You're doing it wrong. It's at least 97.75%, probably closer to 98%. ;) As I said, the statement itself...

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China and/or impersonality? You called it on everything except the pronoun. :p In fact, I deliberately used the word "impersonal" rather than "faceless" because I thought it'd be less easy to misinterpret.

Maybe Inner Sea Magic, if she specifically doesn't have it? Or a Harrow Deck?

Reverse-engineering, then? Nothing wrong with that.

I'm aware of what an equals sign is for. That's the only reason I even considered the potential double-entendre.

Well, let's see: In other words, company A is not actually impersonal, company B is not actually "by the fans, for the fans," and the only reason that anyone would say so is pure bias. Unless some sort of double-entendre was meant (in other words, while the above interpretation could apply...

You didn't make a joke. You made a snide remark (three times) and called it a joke. And accusing me of "not getting it" doesn't change that.

Ah. Gotcha. Couldn't quite recall the exact timing. I'm inclined to agree about at least a good portion of the content of those books. There's relatively little that I'd personally allow from either. (Equipment, spells, and standalone classes, pretty much. All else would be subject to...

Yeah, wasn't what's-her-face (Miz "I'm not a gamer, and I'm proud of it") in charge when AD&D came out?

Far from it. It's easy enough to tell that you weren't being entirely serious. But simply taking jabs at people is not humor in and of itself. In other words, if it was meant to be funny, it fell flat.

It's a bit clearer, in terms of putting all the details out there. But it still needs work.

You've said that three times now, but that's still not how it works. Lack of ethics and/or principles are one of the (many) reasons why people may not like a company. But companies don't become less ethical or principled because people dislike them. Where would you get that idea? Companies...

I'm afraid you've still got them inverted. Companies' tactics are not shaped by our opinions; quite the opposite, in fact. We can't bend reality by sheer force of will quite yet, after all. And even if we could, I somehow doubt that making a company one dislikes start abandoning its scruples...

I think you're confused. They're paired off correctly, but each one should be the other way around. :)

Provided they can maintain a good balance between continuing to put out quality content and avoiding too much splatbook overload? I wouldn't entirely rule it out.