Search results

Thanks a lot man. I appreciate it.

Where/how do I post a review on ENWorld? Things have changed so much around here, it's hard to tell. Shall I post it on my "blog" here or ... ?

I have a simple personal rule: I wouldn't game with people I wouldn't socialize with in the first place.

It's a great game, but indeed, between the lexicon and the very complex web of game mechanics, it's a game with a pretty steep (ah-ha!) learning curve.

Yes, sure! Works fine between players with the right mindset (aka "good players" by my book). Playing the opponents when their characters are down, playing the doppelganger who took over the original character, etc. Sure! It's a fun part of the game to switch the tables around a little bit! :)...

I know, Rechan. Just pointing out that mileages vary on what consitutes a "nightmare" version of the game, and what doesn't. That's all.

Well that depends: would you consider 4e a "nightmare" version of the game? Not saying that to provoke people who like the current version of the game, but I'm sure mileages vary as to what constitutes a "nightmare" version of the game, and what doesn't. :)

Demons. I just love the near-infinite possibilities the Abyss represents.

"If you play [insert pre-3e edition of D&D], it's just nostalgia." "All fighters in First Ed AD&D play the same." "Rules balance = game balance."

Alright. Since you meant primarily "how necessary is it to have their stats in the Monster Manual", I'll take it as a question relevant to the identity of the game: Fundamental. That's the first word that comes to mind. Why? Because they embody ultimate, consumate evil and embody each their...

Hmm, no. It's not quite as simple as it looks. It all depends what you mean by "D&D" when you ask if they are "important to D&D". Are you talking about actual game play, or game history or... ? The answers will be different based on what you choose to define as "D&D" in your question. If...

Ultimately? We agree, absolutely. :)

Very interesting feedback. Thanks everyone! Just a bunch of disclaimers at this point: I'm not claiming to stand above the fray in this. I may not think of RPGs in terms of stories, say, but I might think about them in terms of wargames, for instance. I think that's something we pretty much all...

RPGs are not "tales". RPGs are not "novels". RPGs are not "stories". RPGs are not "wargames". RPGs are not "board games". RPGs are not "video games". RPGs are not "card games". RPGs are not "movies". RPGs are not "thesis". RPGs are not "studies". RPGs are not "experiments". RPGs are not...

Comparing RPGs to anything else to convince people to try them out is one thing. That's fine. Comparing RPGs to anything else to try to distill GM and/or player advice from them, or worse, design intent and ideas, is something that has been done ad nauseam, and often led to poor game play...

Assuming the revisions made to the modules to retrofit them within the boundaries set by the GSL as to the coexistence of OGL and GSL products within the same line of products are not resulting in a weakening of the originals contents (and it does not sound like it), this is a good thing, I believe.

Well, I do agree that claiming 4e hasn't be successful at all, at this point in time, would be disingenuous or just misguided. I think the whole question that now motivates various debates and discussion regarding 4e's success is exactly "how successful" it is, and whether it fulfilled WotC's...

Thank you. I will. But don't expect me to be bullied into giving explanations because someone might feel offended for me taking a jab at an argument you yourself told me nobody was trying to make. You can't have it both ways, Sir: either people are trying to tell others what they're doing is...

Yes, there was a point, and yes - I'm afraid you missed it.

And nobody besides players at my game table could get me to do otherwise. Thank you very much! :D