Search results

I don't recall that from the series - the books, yes, where it was reasonably clear that the Doctor was a reincarnation of this mysterious "Other", a third figure alongside Rassilon and Omega. Didn't care for those elements either, though I still think they were somewhat less ham-fisted than...

Which would have the saving grace that it would still make more sense than most of Davies' later scripts. (Most of my issues are really more with Davies than Tennant when you think about it.)

At the beginning, he was... well, the Doctor. By the end, he was this utterly ridiculous godlike being who couldn't be realistically challenged by anything, and was all too aware of it. God could he be a git when his ego got going, which by then, was most of the time. The only thing left to do...

Lucky. He was absolutely insufferable by the end of his run.

I like very much. I might be running a Star Wars adventure path at some point and haven't been entirely satisfied with any rule set I've come across for it. This shows considerable promise and when that day finally arrives I imagine I'll either use Myths of the Far Future for it or something...

They are never the same thing. I'm not saying they need conflict, but acting out dialogue and such is neither necessary nor sufficient for playing in a way that's true to your character. That's true, but has nothing to do with anything I said. Surely your character shouldn't deviate wildly from...

A new Order of the Stick is up. An exposition-heavy one-and-a-half pager, featuring an uncharacteristically clever Elan. This one will be important later.

I only read the OP and the first few and last few posts, so sorry if this has already been discussed. The OP says of our hero: "One player is likable, charming, a joy to be around. He roleplays his character superbly. Everybody likes him. The GM likes him." In my experience, this combination...

There's a somewhat similar thread in the EN Publishing forum, though it's specific to, and assumes some familiarity with, WotBS. Here's my entry from there, on the rather unexpected resolution my group found for the second adventure.

... what? That sounds like one of those weird and poorly thought out additions for the 4E version. There's nothing remotely like that in the original, and it makes no sense, at least to me. At least in the original, the party will typically have Indom's boon at that point (even if fighting him...

Is Seaquen part of Dassen, or more of an independent city-state? The Player's Guide pretty clearly says the former, but throughout the third adventure they are consistently presented as separate political entities, suggesting the latter. For example, the King of Dassen is said to resent Seaquen...

I changed the layout of the forest a bit (from what I could tell, anyway - the explanations of it are a little vague and the map of the forest shows only about half the stuff it ought to show[1]) specifically to make it more likely the PCs would encounter Nelle and it still didn't happen. They...

Definitely want. And, would prefer this over doing the same thing for 4E - from what I have seen, the 4E versions added useful detail in a few places, but most of the additions are superfluous to the story and several are poorly thought-out. Or to put it a different way, I have a very different...

I started with D&D but was familiar with five other systems (four of which I had at least the core rules for) by the time I turned 13, none of which are among the poll options. My first real love RPG-wise, other than D&D, was Mayfair's old DC Heroes system. Didn't answer the poll because I did...

Nope. There are lots of kinds of chess, and don't quote me on this, but I think all the elements you mention have been part of at least one at some point (though not all at once). It should probably at least have an adjective in front of "chess", if for no other reason than to attract the...

Actually, they're based on the things I said they were based on - namely, failure to use reasonably well-understood best practices - not on something else. It's not so much misreading his audience as (A) writing for far too narrow an audience and (B) writing things that are not maximally useful...

Even if it is, surely it's not the only thing that's important to you. No, I don't think he is, and I certainly am not. This is precisely the egregious misunderstanding I referred to about two pages ago. All we are saying - and we're not assuming it, good reasons have been given in support of it...

I "know" nothing of the sort; it rates maybe a 4 on a good day as far as I'm concerned. I don't disagree with Neuroglyph's overall impression; I just think he did a terrible job of justifying it (and that you've mostly correctly identified the reasons why).

I don't think anyone's denying that, but that is a very long way from what "there are no wounds in D&D" appears to be saying. "Not specifically defined by the mechanics" is one thing, "doesn't exist" is quite another.

These things are definitely of interest to people here, but they're hardly make-or-break. It's one thing to discuss them, it's quite another to seemingly base the entire review on them. Even Neuroglyph seems able to distinguish between fun factor (as Dannager has been calling it) and...