Search results

Oh, I've got this one: Because WotC never spent any time considering what 'magic' means to any of their settings and as a result now neither they nor a vast portion of the fandom really have any frame of reference for how it should, could or would work aside from pulling a Quesada and saying...

I said nothing about you personally, but 'tactical combat board game' actually is disingenuous.

I've decided it's not chess because the pieces are metal and I grew up with a plastic set. So real chess is played with plastic pieces.

And the GSL and the tragedy that befell the digital tabletop team and a concerted sabotage effort from 'fans'.

Or it proved brand loyalty is toxically strong, considering how many people who will outright admit it was a good system but then lament that it 'wasn't D&D' for whatever 0 that's worth.

That'd be 3e where a lot fo the new designers were big on using computer design terms such as why 3.5 is a .5.

Did you then adjust them up as the system suggests for groups that want higher challenge?

It's not necessarily a question of a bad DM, but a human one working with a bad rule. The issue is that if the game tells you that it's okay to ruin a character if they don't interpret their character's faith exactly as you do then... well that's what you're going to do. Because the rules are...

For me, I don't see the character's personal faith to be something I need to okay, same as I don't need to okay their physical appearance or family. Like I said before, if they want to work with me to make it a bigger thing in the game I'm happy to, but I don't need to give permission for them...

It's not really violating the setting until the DM decides to violate the character using the setting as a fig leaf.

Excellent. They shall rue the day they played D&D that one person decided wasn't D&D.

Shall we dispatch the D&D Orthodoxy to destroy them for their unforgivable sin?

Oh my god, can you not use 'superhero' as a terrible buzzword? Especially when you immediately reach for a group of characters from the genre (Marvel's mutants) who are in fact very much the product of specific thematics and worldbuidling? Mutants are unified by a shared background of...

I'm not thinking it's going to be 'table's' looking for this, but singular actors that are going to impress it upon tables.

It was all just a beautiful dream. A mirage dashed away by a giant, robed wizard butt.

I mean we're talking about what they're doing in terms of game design, no? I've got my own cooking, but I'm not here to shill my own work.

Dude said 'fantasy worlds'. Nothing about games. Only time 'game' came into it was to take a shot at using 'superhero' as a lame buzzword.

I have no idea what you're actually saying here. But you don't actually need classes to fulfill archetypes. Nor do classes need to enforce archetypes. That didn't seem to be what you were arguing earlier. Merlin came out aging backward. Harry Potter (granted he is post-D&D) started talking to...

I mean, I hate tracking slots too, but the whole idea of half casters is marred by the fact that D&D was never all that good at making up for the other half and has actively gotten worse at doing so because it no longer knows how to grant non-magical abilities.

I think --and I'd love to have lamefan chime in on this as they're the one that put forth this idea to me in the first place-- it's more as part of the gambling aspect of older D&D. You pays your money, you takes your chances. for gambling to be a thrill, you need a bunch of varied fail...