Search results

This is always the best response to the "vote with your dollars" idea. If all you ever do it vote with your dollars, then any company that does see a drop in sales has to guess as to why. And they might very well get it wrong.

That's the part you're missing. A creator cannot be said to have full rights over their creation if they are not able to sell it to someone else.

Untrue. You can't copyright an idea, only a very specific expression of an idea. See, for example, the 170 copies of Superman mentioned in the thread previously.

Only if the proponents of the model are correct in their claim that mixing types results in an incoherent game. There is no evidence that their claim is true, and as such you have no basis here. If you don't presuppose the truth of this claim, there's no reason to believe incoherency will result.

They don't just disagree. They brought receipts. They presented evidence that refutes your claim. That it is your opinion does not shield it from criticism. And speaking as someone who doesn't own any of the books being drawn upon for examples, I can tell you that the argument that you are...

"Changed" <> "sanitized." That's the point you're missing. There is no objective definition of what sanitized means.

Lucky for me I used a nice vague term and didn't commit to anything quantifiable then.

It absolutely is opinion. Should be obvious given the old-timers talking about how the game was only played a certain way back in the day.

What they may have failed to consider is that merely attempting the former is enough to make much of the latter group unhappy.

Imagine how people being constantly told that their preferences are childish feel then. Maybe speak up for them?

Really? As an adolescent I found it funny. At 45 years old now I find it cringey and misogynistic. You seem backwards on what adolescent males like.

Yes, biological essentialism has become less popular. Which is a good thing.

¿Porque no los dos?

The guidance provided in the book on how kender behave explicitly states that non-kender find them extremely annoying, and provides numerous reasons why, including constant theft of belongings. Roleplaying a kender to not be annoying means you have to ignore the canonical description of how...

Indeed. It's not just the stealing. Part of what I quoted above involved barraging non-kender with constant questions and "a million lies." Kender are presented as being extremely irritating to non-kender. It's even enforced with the taunting mechanic.

Indeed, if the "how had D&D changed over the decades" thread has taught me anything, it's that some people have only ever played with people who behave like 14-year-old edgelords.

Three pages of information are presented about kender in the book. The stat block takes up about one page. That leaves two pages of information that you have not included here. On page 53, under Society it states "Kender society can also be hard to take. Nonkender visitors rarely stay longer...

And the correlation between this type of experience (you do not appear to be the only one with it) and a particular opinion on giving players agency in the world-building seem to be very strong. Just remember this the next time you're tempted to generalize your own experiences to the game as a...

If that's the type of player you're used to playing with, that could explain a lot of things that you seem to believe represent general truths about how the game is played. Because the above is not a general truth about how players play the game.

Can you point to an instant where anyone has actually proposed this type of play (emphasis added)?