Search results

And some posters did, which demonstrates that it's not as unclear as you think. Remember that you're the one who attempted to place 100% of the blame of any misunderstanding on the person writing the post, accepting zero responsibility for reading it uncharitably. That's not at all what I said...

That quote is not as damning as you think it is. I understood what they meant, for example. This does not work as an argument, because in online discussions there will almost always be people who misunderstand your argument, often due to a lack of charitable reading. You've also presented a...

It's not that far off, no. The number of adventures produced is TINY compared to the setting material produced. So characterizing it as a very far cry is inaccurate. The Realms was about setting material first and foremost, by a long shot.

Compare the ratio of adventures to campaign setting accessory books in FR to the same ratio in DL. They're not remotely similar.

Reset and reimagining are not mutually exclusive.

That's the problem with most purist arguments - the "pure" version of the thing is simply the purist's preferred version, not some objective original state.

She said that suffering was good for them. But only them, of course, while she flew around the world obtaining the best medical care money could buy for herself.

It's absolutely true that people can change an irrationally-held belief when presented with evidence. So it is possible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, which means the platitude is incorrect, which was the point. It won't always work, not nearly always...

I agree with your post, but I will say people should stop describing these players who prefer to play certain character types in negative terms. Maybe they just don't value playing different character types all the time? Maybe they just get more out of the game by playing something they know...

Or like they prefer to play elfgames the way they prefer to play elfgames, and maybe you should stop judging them for how they prefer to play elfgames. "Afraid" has nothing to do with it.

Here's an alternate hypothesis: since we have sales data from the TSR era and therefore know that many of their settings sold like naughty word, they know that writing in that way drives sales down because it appeals to too small a subset of players. So maybe assuming incompetence is unfair to the human...

Reminds me of those ads in Dragon back in the day: "No elves..." If that's the biggest selling point you think you have, no thanks. Probably shouldn't speak for all us old timers like that.

Sure, but the "if" is the operative word there. Finding reasons to explain why something might be happening is speculation if the thing you're explaining isn't actually happening.

The problem is that the age of the hosts of a Youtube show is being presented as evidence that there is an active goal of making the D&D design team younger, just to make it younger.

Was Mike Mearls, or another D&D designer, ever a host? Were the hosts a year ago any different than they are now? If not, then claiming it's some plan by WotC is untenable because they're only owned D&D Beyond for 6 months.

My point was that unless this (A) is actually happening, rather than "seeming" to happen, and (B) happened within the last 6 months, then laying it at the feet of some presumed goal by WotC is a non-starter.

You know WotC has owned D&D Beyond for like 6 months right?

I looked and didn't see anthing relevant. What are you referring to?

The obvious retort would be "If I memorize Jabberwocky, and then recite it, it doesn't disappear from my memory. In fact, the act of reciting it will if anything solidify it in my memory, making it easier to remember and recite again without having to study it again. So it seems this is not...

If it's as reliable as i before e except after c, then there will be more words that break the rule than follow it.