Search results

You keep dodging this point - if your business cannot afford to pay its workers a livable wage and treat them like human beings, then your business model sucks and you should go out of business.

"But if we let our employees go to the bathroom, we won't make as much money!"

If your lore isn't good enough to convince the players to buy into any associated restrictions, maybe your lore isn't as interesting as you think it is. Maybe consider that their ideas might even be better than yours.

False equivalence. You're interpreting the word choice in a very narrow manner, and pretending that "judge" doesn't have a range of meanings, like most words in our language. You've interpreted it in the worst possible way. Forum discussions go much better if you instead read it in the most...

Extremely unfair characterization. They never said anything about "having" to judge them - just that they "reserve the right" to do so, meaning they will do it when it is warranted. You put words in their mouth here, and you should not do that.

I think it's a fabulous idea in principle. One of D&D's great incongruities is its emphasis on detailed equipment lists and mechanics while relying on MASSIVELY abstract concepts like hit points as core mechanics. In general I think it would be improved by embracing abstraction in more areas.

Hypocritical isn't the right word, but yeah I'd say that's an arbitrary distinction, and is very much a "you problem", not something creators should consider.

Indeed. The issue is when people go into every thread related to a topic to post the same thing about how they don't like it, over and over again. We get it, you don't like it, move on. But on the other hand, if your intent is simply to state an opinion and move on, why state the opinion at...

There's no "need" to strictly adhere to previous canon either. If your point is "I don't think they should make any changes other than gully dwarves and kender" then cool, but that's entirely subjective and really doesn't provide anything to talk about. I think they should make more changes than...

"No depth" is an entirely subjective assessment of course.

Isn't that the point? That whole avenues of adventure are cut off from the players by the existing stories?

That would not be a good reason to design a whole new setting. Very much "our elves are different" in nature. If there's no spell magic, then psionics are the standard magic of that setting. Writing a new setting just to have a different implementation of magic mechanics would be a strange choice.

Your first post in this thread implied they're normally dishonest. Now you take them at their word, when convenient for your point.

You can set your watch to it.

Cool. The D&D you like still exists, as do all the old books you may have. I mean, it isn't a label, but whatever. I was describing my own attitude here.

So You agree it's not art, which was the point.

I'm the complete opposite. I'm happy when there is a thing that makes lots of people happy, even if I'm not one of them. There are lots of things that make me happy, I don't need everything to cater to my tastes. I don't WANT everything to cater to my tastes. What a dull world that would be.

They can call it whatever they please. Reality is more imortant than labels. Don't obsess over labels.

Great. Since you don't do it for a living, you don't have to think about such things. But at the same time you're maligning people who DO have to think of such things, calling them malicious and/or incompetent. It's an abject failure to understand the perspective of someone who is in a very...

Missed my point entirely. It is the same as saying edition, and we already do it all the time, and it's all still D&D.