Search results

Absolutely. I've been inspired to create new stuff for my game after walking through the Louvre, Prado and the Met. Different games can do the same.

Of course. There is that angle to consider too. :)

Most certainly different. I mean if one is doing anything else other than pure hack & slash. Even then one can engage monsters in conversation and interaction. That is quite impossible with a computer game as there is no intelligence to interact with on that level. "Railroading" is a...

If you search you can probably find the interview with one of the 4E designers. One of the prime design goals for 4E was to try and create a tabletop computer game, if you will. This is was because of the revenue "goals" given to WotC for the D&D line by the execs in Delaware and they thought...

When I was a kid most wore shirt, tie & hat in the cities. Of course as appropriate to profession/occupation and circumstance.

I've never seen a computer game where one interactively role plays. There's no back and forth. Just pushing buttons and no interaction with intelligence. So, not sure what you mean by "computer rpg"...

Compared to the total number, spell casters were EXTREMELY rare. I did NOT say nonexistent. Reread EXACTLY what I wrote. I said, "mainly". Not classic fantasy. Go earlier in the genre.

So has the "market" in general. That's why D&D fell from 1st to 4th in popularity...

No. Creation of a theory (scientific) does NOT rely on consensus, authority, et al. All that is required is adhering to the Scientific Method. What you just referenced, is the M.O. of religion and faith. Which is why any real scientist cringes when someone says that X number of scientists...

What I meant was that in CLASSIC fantasy the "heroes" (a la would be PC's) were NOT casters. In Greek fantasy you had Circe and the like. Conan and the like had casters mainly as rare antagonists. Etc., etc.

Actually, per the Scientific Method a theory cannot be a theory if it is untestable and therefore not subject to falsification attempts. THUS, ANY "theory" that contains that is NOT in fact a scientific theory. Which is of course why deism cannot be a scientific theory...

Correct. AND, getting rid of most casters. A spell caster being rarer than an 8 legged human. Well, almost more rare.

OR, evidence that people who don't like something are less likely to answer polls and MORE likely to write. ;)

Correct. D&D was successful because of what it was. Not what it wasn't. When it went far afield (4E) of that it lost its preeminence. (PF) took the top spot market wise. Now, WotC is trying to undo that error. But, they really didn't recognize the error if the playtest materials are...

Right. As the GM I always classed the Barbarian Rage/Berserker power as an extraordinary thing granted from on high. I completely dumped the Knight "challenge" crap. The effecting people at a distance "magically" but without magic isn't part of my games.

Depends on the claim. If someone claimed tht they drove to work yesterday I'd do nothing. The names are protected by Fed statute. Anyone who has any decent EDU knows that those type of agents have that protection. What was I doing? I was instructing DoD & CIA on anti-terror strategy. No...

Well, statistical evidence (historic sales of this system vs. systems that don't have that "spray of "new player repellent") disproves your statement. FACT always trumps opinion.

Correct. I am a scientist and that is part and parcel to our training.

For myself it has never been a matter of "being ready" but, whether or not a new edition is worth buying and playing. I will go to a dead tree book store at some point after release and read through the PHB and see if it is a game worthy of my money.

I put 0 as I might watch 2 minutes of weather a week. I read nowadays. eInk reader + thousands of free ebooks = good time, to me.