Recent content by Emerikol

So the gist of it is.... Because in the past some humans were falsely accused of being savage and evil, we cannot now have savage and evil make believe races in a roleplaying game. First I will say that the past should never dictate what you can or cannot do today. It's either inherently right...

The system uses plot coupon style mechanics where you trade back and forth meta tokens to enable some things to happen. That turns me away right off. I think it is a very streamlined system but again I didn't play past the first Numenera because I didn't like the plot coupons.

What is funny to me is that it is my fighter players that hated 4e the most. It wasn't the wizards trying to keep the fighters down. For my flavor of game, it is the people who play those classes that are martials that object.

That might, maybe, work for encounter "powers" though mapping powers to stamina still seems like a big fail to me in many cases. It doesn't work for daily powers though.

Yes but these options often look like spells to me. They have limits on usage without any explanation in fiction. 5e's second wind for example and 4e's daily and encounter martial maneuvers. So when you use up some resource that without a magical explanation doesn't exist, it doesn't sit...

My primary point is that on this issue there isn't that much room for compromise. What one side wants the other hates. So it's divisive. That was the point. And when you change a game that is one way into a game that is the other way, you are "forcing" out those who consider the changes...

All Messiahs based upon the Christian one would be avatars. NOT all avatars would be Messiahs.

That is true but is that a point? My point was that people can react badly and I gave my example. The outcome was bad. What does 3e putting them back in matter when it comes to the point I made?

True but as GM, I don't want a lot of debates about that history. If it is my unique world there is no argument. I know history pretty well by most people's standard but I have friends who are like me and also know history well. I don't want the game to devolve into a debate about the real...

I think roleplaying games are so wide open in ways they could be played that it's impossible for one game to suit all styles. WotC wants to maximize profit so they will do what they can to leverage their name and provide something they believe is in the sweet spot of gaming. Sometimes they...

This age old debate is pretty divisive. To the degree the people wanting to turn warriors into casters get what they want, they will force people like me out of their games. Despite what has been done to appease them in 5e, they aren't satisfied. 4e was perhaps the fruition of their...

I would avoid using real religions for many reasons. Even if you want to use a real one, just reflavor it enough that no one can say it is the religion it is based upon. One issue is you may have players who know the real religion better than you do. This is why I have avoided campaigns set...

This is actually a pretty good answer though I'd add "skilled play" as it's known in most OSR games to that mix. Otherwise I think you hit the broad categories.

And Jack, I too prefer your style of play when it comes to hard earned victories. But I agree with the others that it is not to everyone's taste. I know people who really do just want to "shine" and show off their cool powers and look good doing it. If they are having fun it's hard to...

OSR style gaming is one flavor of gaming. It's like saying "can I get more customers if I sell chocolate ice cream". The answer is almost surely yes. The OSR being out there will add players to the hobby. The bigger question for WotC is what they should do to maximize new players. Then...