Search results

Not a fan of this. It stereotypes these cultures and it is weird that every single member of the culture would share these traits. If you tried to do with this real world cultures it would become offensive really fast. Then again, it is an abstraction for an elf game, so maybe it is fine... 🤷

Here's the thing. Having a world where people are treated like smallpox is messed up. You can come up with any fantasy justification for it, but if it is rational and good to round up orcs in concentration camps and send them to gas chambers, that is not a world I want to be playing in.

Yes, but given that you probably do not run the same scenario for thousand tables, thus we do not have this information, it is moot. No I didn't. So it is true that sometimes the situation the GM present is such, that the GM can with high accuracy predict what the players will do. And some...

No, the biology affects the culture great deal, it is just than on Earth all us modern humans have basically the same biology, so obviously we do not see that between us humans. But orcas have pretty different cultures than humans!* You seem to think fantasy species just as different...

I think there should be elven cultures and halfling cultures. But if the non-humans and humans always share a culture, what's the point of having non-humans?

Thank you for this post and I am glad that you wrote it.

It's not. Daggerheart or Candela Obscura are not the main product of Critical Role, they're just side business, part of the merchandise. The streaming shows are the main product. It is like complaining that they sometimes use socks other than their branded Critical Role merchandise socks.

Fair enough. Let's focus on what was said in this thread. Is it fair to say that some people feel that they need clearly telegraphed enemies that can be slaughtered without second though, like the Doomguy gunning down demons? Because, whilst there certainly can be situations where the enemies...

What was unfair about it? It was literally said in the railroad thread, and here you said people "want to be able to just punch people in the face without worrying about it so much in their entertainment game." Your words, not mine. I was just a bit taken a back by similar sentiment expressed in...

Yes, pixel hunting. It is the literal worst way to run a game.

Well, I guess you can always have nazis and their analogues. Stormtroopers of an evil tyrant, evil cultists, etc.

Yah, I guess. And in other thread I was also told that having to make meaningful decisions is tedious and exhausting to the players...

I'm moderately pleased with it being D&D, but I am really stoked about this campaign structure. My enthusiasm level for this certainly has increased.

And will gladly point them towards the nearest railway station, I just do not wish to join them!

Yes, this! It is so simple. I am always flabbergasted how people feel they need to have always evil things to have conflict in their stories. We don't have those here on Earth, but there hasn't exactly been scarcity of conflict!

I definitely think the complicated situations should be the main ingredient. Simple ones are just scaffolding to get there. I really, really do not think that making meaningful decisions is onerous or tedious in a RPG, it is in fact the point of playing.

Yes. I just think people are using words weirdly. If there are many meaningful decisions that impact what course the events take, then it is not linear or a railroad!

Yes, thus it is not a complicated or nuanced situation. Hell, it is barely a situation at all, it is more of an exposition, a setup. Indeed. And I think it is fine to have some of this sort of structure in game, but it is there just to be scaffolding to get to more complicated situations where...

No, I want there to be complicated and nuanced situations that do not have one obvious correct solution.

Some situations are like that, but I think it is poor adventure building if every situation has one correct and obvious answer, and yeah, to me that is rather railroady.