Search results

I don't have enough data to make a firm judgment, but with this thread as evidence, you are 2 for 2 on bad analogies. When the two things you are comparing are actually wildly different from each other in all their details, that's pretty much the definition of a bad analogy. The devil, after...

Scribble, I'd love to give you xp, but I cannot yet. The sense of scale here is appalling. $6 bucks was a warning sign of a money pit... somewhere around 1950. I know how this is going to sound, but I intend no offense to you personally. This is a broader problem that I see a lot. It's...

Terrible analogy. Trying out a game is more like seeing in advance what life would be like with them in office before electing them.

Fair enough. I just felt the need to provide some counterpoint. I, however, think a $3-6 expenditure to "rent" a game system beats the holy heck out of not having a rental option at all. And, as others have pointed out, it helps out the proprietor of the FLGS. WotC doesn't need to provide...

Thank you. A needless observation that can only serve to obscure my point by allowing people to take this ad hominem. The point is that sinking $3-6 on an afternoon of most hobbies is getting off WAY light. To spend that little and walk away with useful data isn't nothing. And it's certainly...

Let's assume a pack is somewhere around $3. $3 won't buy you a decent cup of coffee in a lot of places. Being out that much to test out a new game? Trivial. If you don't like it, you say to yourself, "Well, I learned something useful today, and I'm only out $3." That's a win. Then you ask...

Interesting idea, but the problem with famous anything is that 90% of the things "everybody knows" (DC 5) are wrong. So you still need a higher check to separate the truth from the far more powerful and widespread fiction. :)

It is actually about neither. It's about using a sentence or fact about one or the both as support for pre-existing grievances, while ignoring sentences or facts that cannot be twisted to provide that support. That doesn't require consistency, so everyone who is conflating them is still well...

Another thing to consider is that it looks like not all the cards will be positive effects. Some are going to be -2, and presumably the rare -5. I think this is where the "deck building" rules come in, so the guy who spends a ton of money can't stack the deck with all +5 while others are stuck...

Oh, sure. I don't care one way another about the "new edition" thing. But between the natural amount of power creep and the evolution of monster design (arguably Revolution), it's probably fair to say that a decent chunk of the MM1 monsters are behind the curve. Not unplayable, invalid, or...

For one thing: The players. More options, a small amount of legitimate power creep, and a whole lot of system mastery tend to combine to form a lot of trivialized MM1 monsters. (EDIT: On reflection, probably not "a lot." More like "some" but perhaps I'm splitting hairs.) That and the flat out...

To follow that philosophy, you will also need to give up high fructose corn syrup, chocolate, mating, and love. And those are rough to go without.... largely thanks to those same circuits. While I'm pretty comfortable with chocolate, mating, and love, I've been trying to give up the high...

Picky... picky... picky... :p I think you know what I meant, though. In any case, I haven't met a 10 year old in years who wouldn't be clamoring for more options 10 minutes after we finish our first game. Meh. I'm doggedly pro-4e, neutral on WotC, and lukewarm on essentials. I don't fit in...

In most cases, that ship sailed long ago. Though we can hope the notion of playing with their spawn might be more successful than playing with me was back in the day.

So am I, for the same reason. The box is brilliant marketing. The rules philosophy, less so, IMO, but we'll see. Of course, I love the box mainly because I intend to give it to kids... whose parents will then be on the hook almost immediately to buy them rules to get them past level 2... I...

Not exactly. They clearly exist. As you said, some of them are here. It's not their existence that is in question, it's their numbers. But I've never met any of them in real life, while I have met many people who got into D&D because of the way 4e is structured. I couldn't pay people to...

Here are the key paragraphs that have gotten very little attention: Emphasis mine. That's exactly where everyone I know is at. Essentials isn't built for an audience we recognize, and certainly not anyone we could actually convince to play D&D in the first place. I just can't figure out...

Al-Qadim is the best I've ever played. Planescape is the best I ever read but never really got to play, though Eberron has some chops, too. Planescape edges it out due to the Torment CRPG.

Sure, but at the end of the day I still think "construction paper guy" and "fancy costume guy" are caricatures. At least, I've never met them in real life. A continuum exists, with those as the theoretical endpoints, and I've certainly met people on the internet who claim to be at those...

As an aside, that's more or less how I always envisioned many Dwarves even before DS. Thorin Oakenshield may have been my model for such. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :D