Search results

That will all depend on how many people come back for season 2.

You have remarkably constant players if the one who wanted to be an elf sailor 3 months ago is still into that idea 3 months later.

I think that's just generally a good idea anyway. Players often don't want to play humans because they are perceived as boring and vanilla. So make them not so.

Yes. Yes. Obviously it's not irresolvable. But resolved or not, it illustrates that by saying "human-centric" you haven't actually done anything to encourage players to get on board with what you actually want to do. What does it say about what you've offered them that their first prefence...

Well. Yes. That's the better way to do it. Although I think it helps to know why you want everyone to be human.

It's not solely the DMs fault. Players can be sometimes be somewhat wilfully indifferent to what the DM is aiming for, but DMs need to know what they actually want too. It's a lot more useful to tell your players what you do want (and sell them on why it would be cool) rather than tell them...

Player 1: What's the game world like? DM: Well it's a human centric world and non-humans are rare. Player 1: So I can only play a human? DM: No there are some elves who visit human lands from time to time. Player 1: Ok I'll be an elf. Player 2: Damn. I wanted to be an elf. Perhaps we can be...

I think quite often it's a case of not really knowing what they wanted until they realise they didn't get it. Edit: Also and related the DM may be quite happy with one weird character (so they're allowed) but didn't expect everyone to take that option. This is the problem when you just set...

A lot of these issues come about because the DM's excluding things doesn't actually convey much to the players. Eg. The DM may think that "PHB races only and non-human species are very rare" indicates the intention for a human centred game, but to players since it's a very specific set of...

Deleted.

Probably not. Difficult to measure that though isn't? And bound to be the sort of thing that's caught up in people's own inherent biases and experiences. Chorus of anti-4e edition warriors: 4e is just a video game. It's lame. All the powers are the same. 4e fans: It's not real. It's meme...

My memory was that 4e fandom was pretty toxic. (Especially on places like rpgnet) I played 4e for years, but I gave up discussing it online because if I had an issue and wanted to discuss a possible fix then any criticism at all was treated as edition war and with incredible hostility.

This thread is all over the place. Racist images such as we saw earlier in the thread is one thing. However, being offended because someone says a D&D edition is a video game, that's the sort of thing you can choose not to be offended by.

Huh? Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

That's fine. But my feeling has long been that most of the stuff in the Dungeon Masters Guides doesn't really need to be in a core book you supposedly need to run the game. DM advice and optional rules is well and good, but it's not essential, whereas having monsters and magic items is.

Yeah I remember reading 5e a lot of times and thinking "just tell us what you intend here"*. A lot of forum arguments about stealth might have been avoided if they'd just had a 13th Age style sidebar which told us something like "this is how we intend to use stealth, or perhaps more...

Put the magic items in the monster book and then there's no need for the DMG.

Yeah. Which is why I'm basically bracketing it for now and leaving it aside.

I'm not sure that Martial characters need more power. What they need is more versatility and flexibility.

Rousseau "Man is born free but is everywhere in chains" vs Hobbes "life in it's natural state is nasty, brutish and short".