Search results

Each entry has certainly strayed further from the tactical RPG design of the original. Whether that makes them worse is a matter of taste. Most fans would either rank Origins or Inquisition first depending on how important those elements are to them, and Veilguard last, but beyond that the order...

DA2 is well worth playing. It still catches a lot of residual flak from its initial reception, which was harmed in part by the cut corners and in part by misalignment of expectations. It got heavily criticized at the time for being a major departure from Origins, but in retrospect it’s by far...

Never played it. Dragon Age 2 was excellent in spite of a few cut corners due to its rushed timeline, and Dragon Age Inquisition, while buggy, was likewise excellent, and got game of the year for good reason. Veilguard is ok. It’s by far the most polished entry in the series, but its writing...

Incorrect

TLDR, I voted “I didn’t start with D&D,” but it’s kind of complicated what constitutes “starting” and also what constitutes “D&D.” D&D kind of defined my gaming experience for many years, despite not always being the rules system I used. As the annoying-yonger-sibling’s-best-friend to a regular...

Some of the language you’re using here is pretty loaded, but no, I don’t think the rules are necessarily supposed to model anything. 5e isn’t and has never really been designed under the notion that game rules’ purpose is to model anything. It has always focused more on using rules to facilitate...

No, indeed. The current designers at WotC seem allergic to making clear, direct statements of any kind.

If you think the OP violates the TOS, go ahead and report it.

I’m skeptical of this claim, unless the “unpopular opinion” you’re referring to was something that intrinsically violated the terms of service to express - for example, most forums’ terms of service include some sort of civility clause, and an… opinion like “all people of [insert group here]...

And guess what? You’re allowed to express that opinion, and others are allowed to agree or disagree with it, as they see fit. No censorship is occurring whatsoever.

No, it’s not censorship, it’s socialization. No one is censoring you, some of your peers are suggesting that people conduct certain discussions in a different way. It’s entirely up to you whether or not to do as they suggest, and entirely up to them how they respond to your choice to do or not...

That makes sense, but it isn’t what the sage advice ruling actually says.

That’s not what’s happening here though…

No better than whom? And what does removing credits (reprehensible though it is) from publications have to do with the conversation at hand? The OP is just asking individual people not to conflate Gygax with any particular edition of D&D…

Sole author is not the same as sole creative contributor.

I’m not trying to diminish his contributions. There wouldn’t be a D&D without him, and the RPG hobby would probably have looked quite different without D&D. But, the same could be said for the other folks who were involved in the game’s creation. Again, the OP wasn’t saying “don’t ever talk...

He’s not “just someone listed in the credits,” no, but he’s also not the sole creative contributor. The reality is much more nuanced.

The OP isn’t saying Gary Gygax’s name shouldn’t be used at all when referring to 1e. It says his name shouldn’t be invoked when referring to an edition. This is maybe not the clearest phrasing, but what it’s actually saying is not to treat his name as synonymous with any edition. Just because...

Those were in the horror subclasses UA. This thread is talking about the 7 subclasses from the Forgotten Realms subclasses UA. The one with the moon bard, knowledge cleric, purple dragon knight fighter, oath of noble genies paladin, winter walker ranger, scion of the three rogue, spellfire...