Search results

You're generally right, but I'm sure there's a situation where you could get someone who has a book and they legitimately say something stupid (like if the writer of this foreword said that, actually, Gygax was totally right or something). But yeah, that basically starts these sorts of arguments...

A lot of that is context, reliant on people knowing that you don't agree with such views in the first place and the nuance of why you would want to repost such a thing, which might require knowledge of what is going on at any given time. But you're an individual, not a massive corporation with...

This absolutely telling you how something should be viewed, in particular the problematic views of Gygax and others. It's framing it both historically and so that you know that publishing it isn't meant to endorse it. If you already know that's bad, then this part of the foreword is not for you...

I want to hit on this. Historians frame things in forewords and such often times because it's necessary to do so. Why is it necessary? Because there are only so many things you can fit into a book and sometimes accompanying information that colors how events or people should be viewed are...

Sure, but that's the problem with selling it as a gaming product. Preserving old versions of it for reference is certainly proper, in the same way we have different editions and edits of different books. That's historical preservation. But the version they currently offer should be edited in...

As a teacher of history, that argument is absolutely dumb. Things are not always evident to people, especially people who know nothing on a topic. There are plenty of young people who are getting stuff that says it isn't bad, as someone who actually has to deal with middle schoolers on a regular...

I understand the point, but it's not quite the same. A gaming supplement, even if it is an old one, isn't necessarily above editing things in and out for different reasons, such as cultural sensitivity. Now if we edited a historical text account to not mention those things were there when it...

As someone who studies history, this sort of stuff is immensely irresponsible and helps people create a rosy, nostalgic gloss over history. You call out when things are bad, and a foreword is absolutely where you recognize it, since it's meant to be a lead-in to the work and give people an early...

I'm pretty critical of WotC, but if I'm being honest, I think a lot of the time the random tables hold almost no use for me compared to what can be found on websites like Donjon and such. I don't think this is a move against homebrewing a setting as much as offering an alternative (and one...

Yeah. Like, it takes a bit of time to internalize and look for the term "Basic _____ Save", but it's one of those useful distinctions that comes up a bunch and really streamlines spells instead of having to know every spell inside and out. I see that, I instantly know the damaging scaling for...

That's not necessarily a bad thing if your players can go along with it. Being able to have an initial adventure, nail the bad guy, and then have a point where certain characters can continue on while others can be switched out (because the players might want to do something different) isn't...

A lot of just the straight-up buffs? Like the Barbarian is no longer Clumsy and can basically Rage as a free action to start, which is great for their action economy. Also the improvements to the War Priest which make it a proper fighting Cleric. The Investigator now being able to do something...

Sure, but the ability to fix problems often depend on how open the system is to a fix. In the case of the skill system, things were designed in such a way that makes this very easy compared to 5E, where I think the problems are different and require deeper solutions. But this was based on @payn...

I mean, being smaller certainly helps, though when they step in it more they get a whole lot of criticism, too. Though I think, typically, they are a bit more responsive than Wizards for obvious reasons; not being a corporate giant can help them move a bit faster on critiques, and given that...

It's literally vague. Saying you saw two posters in a thread of 1,800 responses is vague, like me saying "There are specifically two cars here that are stolen" in an airport parking lot and me refusing to say which ones. Which is why it'd be helpful to post what you're talking about instead of...

I feel like if you are going to make vague generalizations that you say you have proof for, you should be able to provide the proof, especially when it should be pretty simple. It feels really disingenuous to try and handwave it away.

Bud, just quote it. Kind of amazed that we've reached such levels of sophistry that we have to now prove that someone was thinking sexist thoughts for something creating something where he ended up declaring "Take that, Women's Libbers!" Getting into some real "But how can anyone know what...

Do you have an actually citation, rather than just a vibe?