They're also kind of Brutalist, which is a look that really works for some people (with buildings, honestly, I'm one of them) and is just awful to others. So that sort of angular look and the fact it very much stands out from other cars is probably a selling point for some people.
The problem...
Because the D&D sphere has been so prone to PC-relevant add-on books--and because there's such a reputation for power-bloat and other problems in them, 3PP or not--there's been a certain kneejerk tendency to set up the barricades around the core books and fend off all comers, within or without.
Nobody probably took the OP's post too seriously, but some of the way the thread's evolved seems to be being taken pretty seriously by some participants. Partly becuase its slid back into an ongoing debate I've been seeing on this board since I got here.
I have to point out at least Micah's issues with current D&D have nothing much to do with diversity in it. I understand why people can get tired of his incessant grumbling about it, but I think its at least fair to not include him with certain--other elements--in the hobby when they're coming...
I think this is a little unfair.
The truth is that while some people can do a competent job of both playing and GMing, and get value out of both, some people are just no good at one or the other, or actively dislike one or the other.
Telling people who are no good (or have reason to believe...
Doubt it really does.
It should be usable for a while at least, and I couldn't see anything in the game that suggests a "god mode" is actually possible.
I'd say yes to both.
Hard to say. I'm not sure I think so, but as I said, I'm probably not its target audience.
Its certainly not...
Elsewhere:
You know, when I say I seem to have gone around the discussion enough times, bringing up things I've already addressed or argument dependent on assumptions I've already said I'm not buying is not going to convince me circling again is useful.