Search results

Okay, let's start with how you don't know what I do and go from there not making false assertions about people.

I'm pretty sure I said 'I think I'm', not 'every one better'.

I am arguing that, but encouraging something is not the same as including it and I'm not going to play rhetorical games trying to force that to mean something it doesn't. We're done.

I'm not going to form my arguments around what you perceive them to be.

You mean with my assertion that changes to it would be used as ammunition?

Why do I have to prove something that is not and has never been part of my thesis? That I've repeatedly stated is not part of my thesis?

~gestures broadly to existing thread~ Or it becomes a weapon to be wielded like a lot of 'traditional' junk from old D&D that's survived purely by dint of tradition and a terrible fandom.

I think I'm going to hold people (and organizations pretending to be people) responsible for the things they do instead, actually.

You don't have to hate something to use it as a rhetorical hammer. especially when it's perfectly possible (and demonstrated) to attack a whole while making exceptions.

Giving a name to something Pathfinder did first and better?

There is in the community and they use the Appendix N as part of it. Either to hold up certain works as necessary and part of the One True D&D or as proof that D&D has fallen off due to the influence of 'lesser' works. As usual, people conflate a thing being X as opposed to it encouraging or...

The point was taking a jumping off point for an aggressive rant against some target dujour. Warcraft, anime, videogames, YA -- just find and replace for BS D&D stock 'point'. It's a thing in this community and something we don't need more of.

And people wonder why I don't want a section in the books promoting this kind of behavior. Fantasy already has enough gatekeepers without giving them more turrets to man those gates with.

See my 30-part treatise on why D&D fans must be stopped.

Instead of just assuming that 'fireball' is the game's ways of describing a number of different effects.

Worse thing in 5e, making the weave a thing across worlds. I find the concept so deeply unimaginative.

I'd find it much more useful to have a discussion in the book about how to mine works you like for inspiration with some examples that actually talk about what the designer took from said work rather than just a list of works with no explanation.

How does 'FR' live up to 'the one setting that matters'?

Considering all the anger and pushback against giving tools and advice for new DMs, do you think that's really why we're wanting it on the book and not to get mad that Poul Anderson wasn't kept in or that literally any anime did?

Wouldn't the only real point of having an Appendix N in the new books be just to check to see if a book that hasn't been relevant for the past 30 years was cut and then complaining?