Search results

See, that's a big part of the problem right there - you telling me what's easy and what's not, as if you knew my taste. And this is what is it about: Personal preferences. And, honestly, you should not presume to know what's easy for me and what's hard. I could handle the damage by simply using...

The main problem we have is that people simply cannot accept that not eveyone plays like they do, or has the same taste. And that's often compounded by a very narrow view of what is D&D - and made even worse by the crusading zeal many display when it comes to advertise their own playstyle. In...

Very good work.

If people state their reasons one knows. If someone says "PCs fail a lot, and that's good!" and then later says "PCs succeed a lot, and that's good!" when the rules changed, then that's a blind defender. If someone says "PCs failing a lot is no big deal" and later "The new system is better...

If you liked skill challenges because PCs failed a lot, or if you said PC's failing a lot is no problem, but then liked the new rules better since PCs did not fail that often anymore, then yes, you are or were a blind defender.

And of course, many see their own attacks as defense of the thing they like, which they feel was attacked first.

The age-old (often subconscious, maybe genetic) wish to "follow the leader". You see it all around us - from fashion trends driven by stars to religious and political figures who can do no wrong in the eyes of their followers. There's also the "group effect" you often see in families - you may...

Yeah. We're playing 3.0, but we've got a tons of hirelings in the party, are at "name level", and more concerned with politics than killing stuff and taking their things. So, it's closer to a "standard" 1E-campaign in some aspects, despite using 3.0 rules.

Laptop with SRD, namelists, PC sheets & stats and adventure/campaign notes.

In my experience, novels generally ruin a setting.

DM screen, printed out adventure notes, laptop with electronic sourcebooks (SRD mainly for D&D). Bottled water and snacks.

I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender. In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.

I'd consider the cleric one of the most changed classes between editions. From early "walking bandaid" to the powerhouse of the party in 3.X But again that could vary a lot depending on playstyle.

I am talking about rules, not fluff. I see it a lot in MMOGs - people make up reasons why something that's pretty much clearly a bug or broken is ok, and imagine reasons why it would be designed that way. In the 4E example, it would be people claiming (hypotheticall, I doubt anyone did it there)...

Another clue for "blindly defending" is when a rule is called perfectly fine, working as intended, etc. by a defender when it's criticised, and then later gets corrected by WotC.

It's been some time since 4E came out, and I'd like to know from those who, like me, bought the three core books when they came out the first time, how many other new 4E books or other products they bought from WotC since then. Count subscriptions as one each for Dragon, Dungeon, and then the...

The skill challenge rules are the best example for "blindly defending" at work. They were mathematically broken, and it was proven very quickly. Anyone who defended the original rules was doing so blindly, and irrationally.

I think the most common ground that people overlook are the differences - between games of the same edition. I remember quite heated debates about whether or not you were still playing D&D if you had no character death. I remember quite various playstyles, ranging from "combat maybe every two...

I do my character pictures with Daz Studio, and a CV that doesn't equal those options is of no use to me.

S&S. Epic fights in a brutal, almost amoral world. Conan, not LotR.