Search results

Bring back Moon Knight!! One can always dream.

It's funny. I've recently run two Ironsworn campaigns with two different groups. Now, these are true sandbox campaigns because not only do the players have 100% control over what they do, they also collectively have control over the challenges they will face. Ironsworn is a bit of an artsy...

Who cares? I'm not going to worry about forcing the game designers to hold my hand for this. This is the most logical (at least to me) interpretation and it works quite well. End of problem as far as I'm concerned.

The difference between hidden and invisible is that hidden means that no one knows your location or even if you are present at all. Invisible just means you are unseen. Again, this is how I interpret the rules.

The problem that I see is that everyone wants to make the "Invisible" condition mean more than it does. Invisible means you cannot be seen, attacks against you have disadvantage and you cannot be targeted by LOS spells. That's it. The enemy knows what square you are in. You aren't hidden (in...

At least that would be history repeating itself. And then all those GM's would start getting catered to - and the books would reflect how the game was being played, rather than this nebulous mythological game that apparently is seen about as often as unicorns. And we're right back to arguing...

I'd take that bet. It's funny how incredibly dismissive fans are of the tastes of other fans. Apparently, huge numbers of players only "follow the new shiny" instead of actually making deliberate choices to play games that they think are better for their tastes. IOW, this idea that the only...

Except that the additional weapon proficiencies were largely pointless. You used two, maybe three different weapons throughout the entire lifetime of the character and, barring a few exceptions, never even considered using anything else. Fighter? Longsword and longbow and that was pretty much...

I said this earlier, but, I think it got lost in the scrum. You have two methods of achieving a result. One method is simpler than the other. The simpler method achieves the same result. To me, the simpler method is always better. It's more efficient, it's easier to use, it has less...

But this is an entirely different thing. I doubt anyone would argue that B/X is more complex than 3e-5e. I certainly wouldn't. But, again, this is a totally side issue from ascending vs descending AC. Why not just say that then? I find 5e too complex and I prefer B/X is a perfectly...

But it was never 15-4. It was 15+4=11. Or, sometimes 5+2-2=1 (chainmail, +1 shield, decent Dex). Tell me again how this is teaching math.

But, weren't you the one arguing that the terminology in AD&D actually changed the meaning of "+" and "-"? If it wasn't you, sorry, but, the argument was certainly made that "+" didn't actually mean "plus" in AD&D. And "-" certainly didn't mean minus. So, how did AD&D teach you about...

Heh. Totally apropos, I had a class this evening and this was one of the slides: Heh. I did not create this lesson. Heck, I hadn't actually seen the slide until I taught it. Just thought it was hilarious that when teaching an ESL class on how to persuade someone, they straight up said...

Ah, it's a long thread and I got you mixed up with @Kromanjon. Totally sorry about that. My bad. But, look at how it's being presented. People tried to "shout him down" for presenting an opinion. That somehow actually having facts is now shouting someone down? @Kromanjon has repeatedly...

Well, the at least 31% of fans who say they don’t want something. What gatekeeping is going on when WotC asks for fan feedback and says, “anything that doesn’t get over 70% approval won’t get printed”? In what manner is that gatekeeping? Fans demanded that WotC listen to them. That’s what...

Really? Supporting an opinion with facts is now trying to force an opinion on someone? Seriously? Earlier in the thread someone claimed that DnD was its most popular when it was marketed to 20+ year olds. That’s an opinion. Now the facts are that this is not true. This is shown to be not true...

So you figure that a company should ignore what fans expressly tell them so they can publish something “innovative “ which just happens to be what you want. And WotC listening to fans is only due to corporate oversight. Yeah I’m going to stand pat on “innovative is stuff I like”.

But, would you not say that opinions that do not have the same level of support are less supported? As in if you have two contrary opinions, one with support and one without, we generally should find the supported opinion to be a stronger argument? In a discussion where we are just stating our...

Isn't this precisely what I said? WotC is absolutely not allowed to innovate. Not because of corporate interference but because fandom absolutely will not allow it.