Search results

OMG, so much this. And the number of people out there insisting that this is the only correct way to do it drives me absolutely bonkers.

Crafting/shopping/economics. I came here to play a fantasy adventure game, not to watch you set up a quaint little craft shop. It might be your fantasy, but it's not an adventure.

Greyhawk was always a gonzo setting. That is its point and purpose. That's the whole thing that distinguishes it, as a setting. It was the "all-in and anything goes" setting before you and I and anyone else in the conversation ever heard of it. Attempts to make it something else are fanfic retcons.

The rulebooks that come with the games explain the rules they are using in significant detail. Not quite to the degree that BG1 did, where you could pretty much just play AD&D 2nd edition out of the video game manual with no other books, but more than enough to understand what's going on in the...

They hold up surprisingly well if you can put up with the somewhat janky controls and looking stuff up in books because it's not in the game itself.

AD&D 1e used xp for treasure and gold, xp for defeating traps and outwitting monsters, and bonus xp for dying (which yeah, that one's likely not amounting to much), in addition to xp for combat. If you had enough money to afford to pay for your leveling up, then the xp for treasure and coin was...

1) Optional rules are still rules. So if you were correct about this, then it would still be just as RAW as proficiencies are. 2) You are incorrect about this. Individual xp rewards are an optional rule. Story awards and survival awards are not. 3) But that's also not quite correct, because...

What edition do you think had killing monsters are the only RAW way to gain xp? I'm pretty sure that's like "orcs are always evil" in that it's literally never been a thing. On topic, though, no I'm not planning to use the new rules. Given how WotC has been acting, I'm strongly disinclined to...

Absolute nonsense. At a TV studio where they don't give a crap about such things "generic fantasy" means Game of Thrones. Literally no one is arguing here that DragonLance isn't generic fantasy, but it's absolutely laughable that someone is trying to argue that GoT isn't.

LoL... there is absolutely no context in which "Huh, this is kind of funny" can be read as a complaint. Other writers absolutely have. Fantasy sagas in the style of DragonLance are a dime a dozen, and have been pretty much continuously since the 70s. You can't throw a rock in the sci-ci/fantasy...

That's funny. You still hate them enough that you can't imagine someone calling them awesome being anything but bait. This does seem a lot more likely to work out, the way I see it. Animation makes it a lot easy to actually put the fantastic into a fantasy series. And, unless I'm seeing it...

I miss when the DMG said that you should kick rules lawyers out of your games. "By RAW, elves can't drink milk, because it's not anywhere written explicitly in the rules that they can. That's what the W means. Written. If it doesn't say you can, then you can't." That's not what anyone ever...

Also, I think it's kind of hilarious that I got so much pushback on the GRRM thing and no response whatsoever to "Kender are awesome, and if you don't like them, you just hate fun." That's probably the first time I've ever said something positive about kender on the internet and not gotten...

If there was a time when either Got or HP weren't generic fantasy, that time was at least 25-30 years ago. For the entire 21st century, both grimdark edgelord and wizard school have been wildly more common than traditional heroic high fantasy.

Hard disagree on every sentence of this. I'll give you the first half of the first sentence, but GRRM's prose is deeply terrible, and his plotting is extremely hit or miss. If you can count "lol, I don't have to care about plot, people will buy anything I put down, so I'll write a bunch of...

Yeah, that's why the AL totally never made rules saying you can't use all the books at the same time to make your character. WotC would never do something like that. Also, literally no one is suggesting it cut out any of the other books entirely. Only specific options. There's no "All sorcerers...

I'm not saying that live action would objectively be a better medium than animation for a BG story. All the reasons about how fantastically expensive it would be to do the setting justice previously brought up are correct and if anything, understated. I think people might be underestimating how...

First, I'm just going to take a moment here to lol at the idea of GRRM's writing being good. The man can come up with decent stories (though, like most fantasy writers, easily falls into pointless rambling instead of actually finishing them), but the writing itself is just painfully bad. And...

So why would the PCs, intelligent creatures, knowing that they are a band of heavily armed and armored people, eyeballing the same 1v5 odds run in terror? I know you really want to have it both ways here, but it doesn't really fly. Either one side seems to have an significant advantage to the...

Uh huh... that's assuming the players know that the vampire is a CR they can't effectively fight against. I don't think "just metagame around it" is quite the trump card you want it to be here.