Search results

Not once is my decades of DL fandom have I ever thought "you know what makes Krynn unique and interesting? The fact that there aren't any orcs." It doesn't make it somewhat unique at all, because there are many fantasy worlds which have no orcs. What makes it unique are the things that actually...

Absolutely. D&D very often does tend to get bogged down by its sacred cows. D&D wizards don't reflect fiction or mythology or folklore, because they're their own thing. They're wargaming cannons reskinned into fantasy units, then morphed into fantasy characters.

The problem here might be that you're ignoring the fact that "medieval Europe" covers a span of a thousand years, If someone does prefer Arthurian stories (which take place in the very early middle ages), it's absolutely appropriate to exclude firearms, which appeared what, 800 years later...

They are explicilty called malebranche in 1E.

I don't see any reason to see the name construction as strange. There are also horned and barbed devils, to begin with, which use the same construction, and in the real world there are lizards called bearded dragons, plus a few other 'bearded' animals.

And quoting the dictionary is always a good sign in discussions. /s

I would bet the context would make this sound at least a little less ridiculous, though you never know. My main pont in responding, though, is to point out that there is no such thing as "proper English". English comes in many different forms and none of them have any more claim of being...

This thread puts the "Is the forum getting more antagonistic" thread in perspective. Reading through many of the posts from 7-8 years ago...yikes. That was around the time I stopped posting here for a very long time. I can see why.

My position on this is that the fact we do not have a name for this concept indicates that it is not, in fact, archetypal. It's a trope of modern fantasy fiction to be sure. But Gandalf isn't a wizard with a sword, of course, he's a divine being. And if you want wizards in your game to be able...

On the other hand, I hope that people will eventually stop judging younger generations for their jargon, especially since such language often originates among marginalized subgroups.

LOL. TSR merchandized D&D heavily in the earliest days of the game.

I wonder if there's anything interesting being discussed in that Dragonlance thread. Oh, complaining about moustaches? Never mind then.

Exactly. Ban orcs from Krynn at your own table. Easy. Nothing to complain about.

1. The 1939 Wizard of Oz is not "the original." There were at least two film adaptations of the story before it. Most people think of it as the original because it's the only one they're familiar with. Which fits into my overall point rather nicely. 2. Your description of the upcoming...

And in addition to a non-all-encompassing list, we could have an arbitrary hierarchy because you'd need one due to the overlap in the categories!

Since Strength represents much more than just how hard you punch things, this is a very silly response, and amounts to a misrepresentation of what Strength means in the game. It's exactly equivalent to responding to your argument to combine Con and Cha instead by saying "I talk the poison out...

That's an incredibly uncharitable reading. Nothing in the post you responded to said anything about a pre-planned story. It just said story. And stories can be completely improvised.

Super meh. Plenty of people round here cut their teeth on 3E, and it came out over 20 years ago. When someone says "classic three saves" it's clear what they're talking about, because BD&D/AD&D had more than three, so that can't be what they're referring to.

You consider things like The Wiz to be "repugnant"?

Those are all the Daves you know?