Search results

Because many people can see how a rule would work without having to play it first, and knows their own preferences and those of the other players?

He suggested the material was removed immediately. But it wasn't - many books were printed with the material and a credit to Chaosium for it's use. Then later the material was removed, but they forgot to remove the credit. My copy for.instance does not have Cthulhu or Elric but still credits...

Ward's recollection of the whole Cthulhu/Elric story doesn't quite match what Sean K Reynolds reported a few years earlier (how I stumbled on this thread.) The full original Deities & Demigods continued to be printed after Chaosium got involved, with language added that credits Chaosium for the...

Apologies. Phone misbehaving.

I do find it amusing that making wizards healers - which is what they are in actual folklore - is considered a "twist." Really reflects the self-referential nature of RPGs.

Another thing to consider comes from the "Eye of the Beholder" documentary about D&D art. At one point they mention that the art for a monster book, and I think they were talking MMII specifically, was essentially done in tranches, where an artist would get an assignment for doing a handful of...

I did some searching for this sort of thing before posting but wasn't able to find anything. If someone can find the post you're talking about it would be fantastic.

Now that's some good thinking.

Seems that way to me as well.

There are only four interior artists credited for the 1983 Montreal Manual II: Jim Holloway, Harry Quinn, Dave Sutherland and Larry Elmore. I'd like to figure out which artist drew which pieces. Quinn and Sutherland both signed each of their pieces, which provides the following: Quinn: bee...

Sorry! Yes, I used to know that. Please carry on.

I figure that if you know it's more work but still volunteer to do it, you have no business expecting deference from the others.

Shouldn't this be in the Promotions/Press forum?

Without explanation it would be a useless comment. But let's not forget the post that started this exchange was an assumption/mischaracterization of why someone else would prefer a particular thing. It was not a post about one's own preference, but a comment made about the presumed preferences...

Ironically you've misused special pleading here (it's an ad hoc exception to a rule, not a specific example of a rule), but moreover this paragraph is extremely dismissive and condescending.

This is a misrepresentation of OP's posts. OP quite clearly explained why they thought the argument was a bad one. This is quite a dishonest reply TBH, IMO.

Note that OP only used the term 'fallacy', not 'logical fallacy'. So you're putting words in their mouth.

If you're done with the time machine, can I use it next? I bet I can find something more worthwhile to use it for than looking at RPG books that haven't been published yet.

They're not "refusing to admit" anything. They disagree with you about the relevance of this, and have explained why, extensively. Attempting to frame it as a refusal to admit something is uncool.

That's cool. But the only thing that matters is that you understand that other people do like to play that way, and that they're in Hasbro's target market too.