Search results

You didn't say that in the paragraph I quoted, only that they were terrifying, which many others have done in the name of "making the world scary again". If it's presented as something that's supposed to make you feel scared it's dark. If it's just supposed to make you feel odd then it's not...

Now you see, this is what I'm looking for. This describes how the elements are different from other settings, and now I can look at those elements and think about how'd they feel when I hold them in my mind. And on a different note: this doesn't make Golarion sound at all fresh. Darkness is...

A setting that doesn't take itself seriously. A setting that isn't afraid to do things because they seem cool rather than because they make sense. A setting that doesn't present its problems in a way that makes their solution "sit on the sidelines and watch the world burn". What are the...

The truth is I couldn't tell you what I'm looking for in a setting (and I couldn't even "just look at it and say 'Nope, not this one, just a gut feeling' "). But I know what I want in a review: a description of the contents of the product. And I wasn't getting that from the reviews of...

How much quality a product has means nothing if one doesn't actually like what the product does. I've read enough reviews about RPG products to know that I could have absolutely no use for what the product describes, not wanting it in any way, but someone else will still go on about how great...

Why? Why do people keep acting as if what's actually in the setting is unimportant?

No, what I've listed are all things that are tangential to the actual setting itself and are in fact based more on peoples' personal tastes than the actual substance of the work. As it is fletch137 has answered the question as I was hoping it would be answered: he/she/it/they described what...

This isn't about what I want out of a setting. This is about what's actually in the setting as opposed to how well it's made, how it stacks up compared to other settings, and what accessories it has.

I've read reviews of the Pathfinder setting, but they don't mention much to distinguish it from a whole lot of other standard D&D-style settings. Other than being well-written, richly detailed, having few game mechanics in the book, having no high-level NPCs, a variety of places and cultures to...

What do people who think this is going to hurt FLGSs think it should be priced at?

Oh I want to play a game like this, but I haven't found any takers. And if you want a system designed specifically and wonderfully to replicate those cartoons you can't find anything better than Cartoon Action Hour: Season 2.

Ah, thank you: I didn't even realize this still existed. :D

But it doesn't give any insight into what things were like before the change. For example I still have no idea how the Scry skill worked. I essentially need the opposite version.

Forked from: Anyone still using 3.0? There are people who make comments like this about how they like some things in 3.0 better than 3.5, but other than the conversion document on the WotC site and the three 3.0 books I own (neither core) I don't have any sources on the difference. I can't...

Well if we're going to compete about it: Stopped buying some time before 4e was even announced. ;)

That actually sounds like a pretty good system for me. I have bought, though not played, a game called Cartoon Action Hour: Season 2 that resolves conflicts exchange by exchange but relies on player-made traits that all work more or less the same. So you can have characters who fight...

Quite possibly yes. The truth is I'm a person who really doesn't like fighting. I don't want to kill people/beings, I don't even want to hurt them. Or, at least, I don't want to think about it. The only way I can imagine fighting is if it's a visceral slugfest, a non-thinking activity. The...

And the version of Chess I'd prefer to play has all the pieces rushing to crash in a great big melee in the middle and the winner is the side that doesn't lose everyone. Otherwise I don't see a point to fighting. It's just too stupid an action any other way.

I was speaking specifically about D&D: I want to play combat non-tactically, Dannyalcatraz said that would result in consequences, I interpreted that to mean it can't be effectively done. I want to fight non-tactically and still be an effective fighter.

I don't want the consequences. Because they intrude on the non-thinking process.