Search results

Edit: Never mind, answered my own question.

He did title it a "contrarian" opinion.

The last time WotC had a major presence at GenCon was 2014, when they were launching 5E. I'm sensing a pattern here.

It is weird that "psionics" as a term doesn't get as much pushback as "species." Maybe because it's just a subsystem that doesn't affect every single character.

Yeah, but those quests weren't required. You could decline them. BfA, on the other hand, gated absolutely everything behind the war campaigns. That's why I only played Alliance for that expansion.

BfA broke my investment in the lore. I just couldn't enjoy playing Horde after they forced us to be war criminals and then shamed our characters for it in-game. Made logging in an exercise in masochism. The only reason I didn't quit was because I had a (n Alliance) raiding group. By the time...

Oh, it's absolutely their plan. This was leaked at some point, probably during the OGL fiasco. (Random thought, somebody should make a Fiasco playset based on the OGL debacle.)

You're assuming that WotC will succeed in their plan to make DDB all but mandatory, which isn't a given. This is how they want it to be, but they might not get what they want.

Actually, all of those seminars sound interesting. Is there any chance they'll be recorded or that Mr. Riggs will post transcripts or summaries somewhere?

I don't disagree, but I also don't see what an administrator can do about either of those issues. Short of pulling the plug ... but if they're still making money, why would they want to do that?

What are you thinking of specifically?

I doubt Hight had much to do with the problems of those expansions, though. I don't think he'd have been involved with gameplay or story decisions. Maybe he greenlit the concepts for them, but that would be as deep as it goes. For what it's worth, the employee who committed suicide was in...

Have you read Matt Colville's Strongholds and Followers, and if so, what are your thoughts on how this stacks up against that? (You may have reviewed Colville's book; I don't remember.)

At least the WoW community has never had a particular problem with Hight, as far as I know. I've been playing for years and haven't heard complaints about him (then again, I might just be hanging out in the wrong places).

It works for real-world situations, but it doesn't translate well to game terms. The tricky thing is that in the real world, we're talking about different subgroups of humans, while in a fantasy setting, the groups we're trying to describe are not all humans. Depending on the setting, they...

"People" and "folk" are not too far off, though sometimes awkward because "people" is in casual speech interchangeable with "humans." But "heritage" doesn't work for me. I'm too used to it referring to the historical background of a single family and typically referring to their station in...

I don't disagree with your historical assessment. However, there was a sizeable span of time when people were using it both in the "people of a region" sense and in the "group delineated by skin color and/or eye shape" sense. During that time, which lasted past the midpoint of the twentieth...

To be honest, if we were living in a fantasy setting, we might well use the word "race" because it wouldn't have the same political connotations as it does today. (See my earlier post about how the meaning of the word used to be a lot more flexible than it has become in current usage.)

Turns out I already own it but had not gotten around to reading it! :ROFLMAO: Well, now I have something to check out next time I have a bit of downtime.

The word "race" used to be a lot more elastic than the way it's used today: it could be as big as "species" or as small as "ethnic group." The original D&D books used the word in this older sense. Frankly (and unfortunately), I don't think any of the replacement terms fills exactly the same niche.