Search results

It probably wouldn't be hard to crib various artificer/alchemist-type ideas from the last few D&D editions to create a Gear domain, although I'm not sure if the second domain should be Codex or something else. And you could probably scour the artificer class from 5e or earlier to yoink ideas for...

Butting in. What are the reasons? What do the rules say?

Again: no, he didn't. He said that the world would remain recognizable, not that they would have similar results.

If you don't know after I've told you probably twenty times by now, then there's no point in my telling you a twenty-first time. But ask yourself what's more logical: the room is the type of room that would have a cup, or the player needs one and rolls well enough that one appears. BW doesn't...

Oh, it seems that Darrington has a section on their site they're calling The Void, where they put playtest material--and they have already put out two new classes (Fighter and Warlock) and one new domain (Dread) for playtesting.

OK? It's still more logical than a player rolling to see if the cup exists, simply because the GM forgot to mention it.

Some people have a hard time learning a game by reading it or by having others tell them how it works; they need to play it to learn. Some people are OK at learning through reading but it takes them several read-throughs to actually remember it. Some people are slow readers, or even lack the...

Magic. I mean, we are talking D&D, right?

So wait, I'm confused. Every game that values verisimilitude is better with GM as neutral referee rather than, e.g., GM as fan of the players? If that's the case, that doesn't make sense. "GM as fan of the players" doesn't mean "GM makes everything go their way." It nearly always means "give...

OK, you've really misunderstood what I've talked about. I criticized the call because it would be logical--likely, plausible, realistic, whatever term you want to use--for there to be a cup in the room, right out in the open, and therefore, it's a waste of game time to require a roll to see it...

It's not utterly ridiculous. You just won't accept any answer that doesn't match what you believe is correct. You said elsewhere that you give detailed answers because otherwise "no discussion would happen." But we can't have a discussion with you because you can't accept any viewpoint but your...

I just downloaded it (I had gotten it as a pre-order). The only bad (?) part about the pdf is that the character sheets and cards are all part of the core book instead of being their own files. Which may or may not actually be a bad thing, depending on your point of view. But I'm going to have...

That's not what Lanefan said at all. What Lanefan is saying that if two groups start in the same setting, the setting itself will still be recognizable barring a major physical change. For instance, you said you play(ed) in the Realms, simply without a Shadowfell, the Tarrasque is dead, and...

... I wasn't arguing. You didn't understand what I was saying. I mean, you could just say "whoops, I didn't realize the context, my bad."

I think it's supposed to last for as long as it makes sense to, depending on the phrasing of the actual results and any compromises that have to get put in. There's this whole bit in the rules about how, if you lose enough dice from your pool during the duel, you have to make compromises, so PC...

It does seem like a really good deal. I hope that entices a lot of people to buy it. If it weren't for the facts that I (a) would totally lose and/or destroy those cards and (b) my eyes are old and crappy so I need to zoom in to read things, I would have gotten the print edition as well.

<facepalm> My point was that we're not actually suffering from a psychosis and really believe that a magic world with dragons and elves actually exists just because we use shorthand terminology to say that the world evolves logically after in-setting events. Here. Go back and read my initial...

Well, that strength does have the downside of being not necessarily interesting to others. I'm not interested in Apocalypse World because I don't particularly like the style of apocalypse presented in the book (and in many post-apocalypse settings, so not singling AW out here). On the other...

No. This discussion is about how some people (People 1) seem to think that other people (People 2) believe that the fantasy world actually, physically exists and advances on its own without GM input, because of shorthand terminology used by People 2. I tried to explain that when People 2 say...

Wait. You're disagreeing with page numbers here. Seriously?