Search results

I'm sure they have. And sometimes the revisions to games are indeed about "making them work better" in a sense that the game did not do what the designer wanted as well as it could. But often revisions are not really about "better" or "worse" rather about changes in what we want the game to do...

I am an art teacher, so I obviously am well aware of the importance of technique in art. But your view seem to be incredibly reductive. Yes, we have some materials and techniques artists in the past didn't. But does this mean we produce better art? It obviously doesn't. And I think it is...

I think it is far more apt comparison than cars. Like I said, we have more to compare to. But most of game design is ultimately about choices, what I want this game to do. In that sense it is more like art. As classically trained artist I obviously do not think renaissance was the peak of...

I think game design is at least part art. Sure, having larger backlog of design to compare to might make designing now easier than back then, but it is not as simple than newer is better. It's not like Monopoly is a better game than Chess even though it is centuries more modern design.

And that why modern art is considered universally better than the renaissance art and modern literature superior to Shakespeare. :unsure:

I'm not sure that if it is significantly better if racist tropes are applied to a culture rather than species. In fact, that's closer to the real life. And yeh, "these people are born evil" or equivalent is literally the stupidest and laziest way to show that the species tends to have certain...

I'm afraid we need to revoke your nerd card...

A species as class is of course super limiting, but I rather feel some sort of additional subclass-like structure might make sense at least for some species. Perhaps your background could work like a subclass, and then for more powerful species that "splat slot" would be consumed by the species...

The issue really is not whether the wings would work (they wouldn't) or whether there is some explanation for them being like this. The issue is that they look wrong and stupid. Like someone said, it looks like someone assembled a miniature incorrectly or like some AI error. Now why it looks...

Not literally, but it has the encounter building guidelines which basically amount to that. 🤷

True. I think cetaceans have near human level intelligence, the poor sods just don't have hands and live in water so they couldn't utilise fire either.

Perhaps, but "sapience" and "sentience" literally mean different things. If you want to differentiate the sort of intelligence humans have from that of most other animals, sentience is not the word for it, sapience is. Squirrels are sentient, as in having phenomenal sensory experiences. They are...

You mean sapience.

2014 DMG, p. 82. Granted, they fixed that in 5.5.

I mean that is just due the bizarre idea that every character needs to be equally good in combat. Bunnies are way better at hiding than rottweilers and a lot of cuter too! Like sure, we want characters to be able to contribute in some manner to most aspects of the game, but this does not require...

In this case the miniature not looking like the official WotC art is a definite plus!

Yeah, definitely. I like them better when they are just draconic humanoids that might be distantly related to the dragons, and that's how they are in my setting.

No they haven't beyond "nuh-uh." In skill challenge if fictional positioning was such that the early obstacle would be bypasses swiftly, the GM either has to invent reasons why it cannot be done, or concoct further obstacles so that the success quota can be fulfilled. This is simply the logical...

I agree with the first part of your post, but not the second. It has gotten much worse, not better lately. The de-facto leader of the fascist totalitarian and genocidal Imperium is depicted as a noble shiny, if tragic, heroic figure. And the Custodes being depicted as "good guys" is not...