Search results

Please try to remember that your opinion about what the core concepts of DragonLance are not universal. What you see as a different world is a tweaked version of the same world to another. Please stop gatekeeping Krynn.

I meant in the context of the premise of the post. The post defined a group, and you say you are not part of that group. If someone says "most people who X do so because of Y" and you respond "well I do X but I do it because of Z" that's irrelevant to the original point, because the original...

To be clear, while it obviously doesn't change the point your were making, it does suggest that your point may well be wrong. If you present ideas in support of your point, and it turns out that these ideas are demonstrably false, that indicates that your point may also be wrong. If what you...

I agree that the Cataclysm's existence is important to the setting. It's a core concept. But the explanations you've provided for it still mean that the "Gods of Good" are not actually good. Passing the buck by saying "Well, the other gods really wanted to do a genocide so what were we going to...

This seems likely to be a misrepresentation. Has anyone here actually said that the good gods must be 100% infallible in order to be considered good? Or have they (as I have) said that failing the prevent the Cataclysm when they could have done so is in itself so egregious that is prevents them...

The post you're replying to said most people. This just means you're not most people.

Assuming those are production paint apps, they're well beyond "nice." You're paying for the detail.

To adapt an adage: There are two kinds of D&D: 1e AD&D, and political.

It's SOP for culture warriors. 1. "If you want representation make your own movies." 2. Minority filmmaker makes own movie. 3. "This movie shouldn't exist! People are only watching it because it's woke!"

I don't see how that justifies anything, because the Cataclysm is absolutely a direct intervention, so any concern about no direct influence is clearly misplaced. Once a decision like that was being discussed, the only good act would be to directly intervene in a way that did not cost so many lives.

In all honesty, not trying to be antagonistic here, but I've seen this sort of claim hundreds of times in various discussion forums about a wide variety of subjects, in discussions I've participated in directly, and very often the "just for disagreeing" part is inaccurate. It's often the result...

No idea if we're thinking of the same instances, but I've noticed a few times recently posters who post an opinion along with reasons for that opinion, and the reasons are demonstrably false or at best misleading, and when others point out that they're using false premises in support of their...

Up until a while ago, I hadn't been to this site or any other RPG forum for about 8 years. What I noticed when returning, that this site, and another big one, had become notably LESS toxic than they were 8 years ago. Meanwhile another site, which 8 years ago was substantially more toxic but...

Ditto. Really only played one BECMI character (a cleric), then went into 1E. First characters rolled was a paladin. Switched to 2E when it came out.

If the designers were posters here, this would be considered a personal attack. Would be nice to have these discussions without leveling accusations of moral failing because a designer designed a rule you don't like.

For anyone who cares to know, I went through and added it up. I've read 37 DragonLance novels.

No, of course not. The gatekeeping is when someone says something you disagree with, and your response is "why are you even talking about this if you don't intend to buy it?" That's the gatekeeping. The idea that only those who intend to buy the book have any reason to discuss it. That everyone...

Why on Earth would you imply that the only reason one would want to discuss DragonLance is if one believes that WotC would listen? I'm discussing it because we're on a discussion forum. This smacks of yet more gatekeeping.

It's obviously not. But your post implied that it's regrettable for a work to be targeted at casual fans. If you did not intend to deride casual fans in your post, you did not do a good job of communicating that.

The fact that words can have multiple meanings is one reason it's best to choose your words with care, lest they be misinterpreted.