Search results

Wow. I am in no way going to debate with you whether the OA podcasters have standing to express complaints. I didn't listen to the whole thing. Only about four hours of it. But, from what I heard, I am certain: They spoke for themselves. Any offense they felt and expressed was their own...

EDIT: Sorry, bad tone on my part. Let me try again: I hear people say things like your saying, but that's not my experience. Often, this sort of comment appears to be an attempt to dismiss others' concerns as misplaced or exagerated or faked. No one gets offended on behalf of someone else.

I love the idea of many languages, dialects, and degrees of fluency in the game. And I hate the thought of any specific ways to implement those ideas at my D&D table. And my players wouldn't care.

In a magic-free D&D game, I'd want a significant expansion of combat options, specifically those that impose conditions on targets. All damage all the time would bore me to tears. Some as regular alternatives to an attack action, others triggered by something like the battlemaster's maneuver...

Smells and sounds.

Broad descriptors of several different areas of the city to set the tone, with typical street scenes for each area -- even a bullet point list of what you might see strolling through the area. Threats and opportunities associated with those areas -- adventure hooks. Then, detailed focus on many...

And, really, this whole notion of "deciding to feel offended" has got to go.

Maybe even hire them as RPG writers, editors, and consultants!

Deleted. The point is moot.

A publisher deciding what to publish and what not to publish is censorship?

No one has decided this can’t be published. It’s not about allowing or not allowing. Would you suggest that it must be published because you want to read it?

A roundabout if folks are amiable. A smash-up derby arena if they're not.

We're all playing the game together. We're eating the same pie. My household keep vegetarian. When we host pizza parties, no one asks for pepperoni, and, if they do, the answer is no.

No, if there are more than two people involved, it's more than a two-way street. Players have sincere, genuine preferences that sometimes conflict. Yes, player and DM preferences are worthy of respect.

That's just wrong. Max doesn’t need me to defend him, but here’s the quote: No one was called a douche for wanting to play a PHB race/class.

My groups usually have four or five people, so for me it's more of a five-way street. Edit to add: I don't want to break out the "deciding what toppings to order on our pizza on game day" analogy, but I will if I must.

For me, strong preferences of my friends and gaming acquaintances are compelling reasons for decision-making, with or without explanation.

I'm not voting. Having the full range of 5E PC options available is never important for me. In fact, it can detract from my enjoyment of the game, regardless of lore, whether I'm the DM or player ... depending of course on which specific options the players at the table opt to use. I've never...

I use the Beyond20 extension for Google Chrome.

I participated in this thread early on and I want to avoid rehashing that part of the conversation. For those who want halflings to change in future iterations of the game, I think we can safely say you'll get your wish. Halflings have been presented differently through the years up to now...