Recent content by EzekielRaiden

Sure. I was using the new(ish, IIRC the 700-year thing was first stated in 3e) numbers, because even with these "reduced" lifespans, it's still very significant.

Yeah, there's a LOT of grandfather clauses when it comes to D&D races. Like all three of the classic non-human races have Weirdness about them that should make them pretty alien. Dwarves can live underground their whole lives, which can be multiple centuries long (200-300 years). Elves can live...

Speaking for myself, it's because it sounds--consistently--like your fun is in having the world be precisely the thing you want it to be and never anything else. That's what looks like a lack of interest in player autonomy. Since your fun comes first, then anyone else's after that. It's a matter...

Ah, I'm afraid you missed the mark, as this is litotes, not hyperbole :P

Max, I bolded a sentence in your statement. "Players should do X, unless Y" means you are specifically saying that the default is doing X. Meaning, GMs simply deserve to be trusted and obeyed. That's not an inaccurate summary. It's literally the argument you just made, and the same argument...

It's what the word means--because this is how people use it. If you don't like that, that's your prerogative, but I don't see where you can claim these definitions are "bad" when they come from the three most widely known professional dictionaries (Random House, Collins, and Merriam-Webster)...

I heard someone wanted some MATH. Group check requires at least half the attempts succeed, hence (as already said at least once) odd numbers are bad, but regress to being equivalent. Three is the worst-case scenario. For now, I'll focus only on even-numbered groups, 2, 4, and 6. 2 is simple...

Except that that is, in fact, literally what "realism" means. Look it up. Or, if you don't feel like it: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4. In every case, when "realism" is used to refer to literary or artistic things, it is always referring to depictions attempting, as much as possible, to...

Uh, no. Remember when folks got red-texted for blatantly inaccurately summarizing others' opinions? I said what I said. GMs are claiming a mantle of leadership. Hell, you and others have specifically said that that means they somehow deserve respect, obedience, trust, etc., etc., simply because...

But isn't that a direct denial of what folks have been saying? Now you don't care if the player is trying to meet you in the middle. They have to give you everything you want, or you don't want them around. That's precisely the opposite of what folks keep saying. Does anyone wonder why people...

And that, precisely, is why GMs neither have nor should have "absolute power". No one who is not willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of the group merits leadership. Full stop.

And my experience is precisely the opposite. Either the campaign is using something not created by anyone in the group in the first place, so we're all operating under limits players will already know because they can just read the material; or the campaign is bespoke for this specific thing...

... Socially punished. And if you think ENWorld as a community doesn't use social pressure to control or manipulate the behavior of others, then I'm not sure what to tell you, because it happens all the time. And I'm not talking about the moderators enforcing the rules. That's completely...

Then ENWorld, GitP, Myth-Weavers, Reddit, Discord, Roll20, and at least two versions of the official WotC forums are unsafe. Because I have seen this exact thing happen in every single one of those spaces. Yes, even here.

@CreamCloud0 already covered this, but I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring too. Your premise is flawed, by way of a fallacy of equivocation. We can talk about the balance of a method, which will need to take into account the spread of possible results. A single character cannot, even in...