Search results

I'm a bit put off by this, personally. The level of staggeringly broad assumption here is truly remarkable. Just a real "everyone who plays D&D is basically like me and my friends" vibe for me. I think you will find, Horatio, that there a lot more and more diverse people who play D&D in heaven...

Not really imho. Cleric is a complicated set of fictional, mythohistorical, and mostly-Abrahamic religious concepts rolled into one. "Power from the outside" is not what defined the class at creation. Further, I would suggest that's never been at the core of the Cleric, never been definitional...

I think they can, actually. I agree - but that's because it rarely comes up in things like Critical Role or BG3 or even discussions of D&D, but there's a reason it rarely comes up - its very existence means there's no point in playing weird lighting games, so D&D isn't a game about lighting...

I think that's optimistic, but if they do half-arse it, I hope you're right.

Oh I was talking from a designer perspective primarily. A designer should understand what they're doing and why re: fiction and simulation and so on. When playing/running whilst it helps to understand the designer intentions you can often just go with the vibe as you say.

Yeah page 154:

I get that you just jumped in without reading the thread and we all do that sometimes, but I politely suggest you read the thread, because this is simply not true and not even really what's being discussed.

Those are two separate issues though. The fiction can need it in a non-simulationist game (indeed I'd argue Shadowdark is primarily gamist, particularly the default torch mechanic as I understand it), or you can have a simulationist game where this isn't a particularly important or interesting...

Yeah Shadowdark (bought it, still haven't read it, I will eventually!) does this right? It presumably has to in order to make the torch mechanic meaningful. Daggerheart notably also doesn't include any "darkvision"-type abilities for anyone, PC or otherwise. It doesn't necessarily make...

Why not? Fear doesn't reset between sessions. Paying 3 Fear now means 3 Fear you don't have next session. It also means you have to hold Fear back to be able to pay for it, limiting how hard you can go in combat. I really think a lot of people forget that Fear doesn't reset. And they should...

I feel like this is a really common issue on ENworld specifically. And let me be clear, I'm not just talking about a 2020s aesthetic zeitgeist, it's been increasingly towards lanterns and magic items (often very minor) and non-mundane mundane light sources (like glowing bugs etc.) since like...

Classic ENworld "question answered correctly in first response post" action here! No sarcasm, I fully agree this is the absolute core of it. And every class where the PC and/or their powers can potentially be messed with by an outside entity has this to some greater or lesser extent - players...

With love, this seems like the worst possible example unless you absolutely body some of those players who can body him! Because it potentially supports the opposite point to: Which I think is mostly true though I think DMs who are unimaginative/narrow-minded or thick or particularly...

Never has a company been better embodied by a fictional character than WotC by Sideshow Bob, I swear to god. The constant unnecessary stepping on rakes (well beyond D&D - in fact if anything they do it more with MtG!) and "attempted chemistry?" re: OGL 2.0 are perfect encapsulations of their...

It's not actually "normal behaviour for a business", it's an increasingly common but clearly degenerate behaviour used solely by large corporate entities who are publicly listed. I very much doubt WotC would do it if left to their own devices, even with the MS-background team in the c-suite...

The trouble with that is it's a bit "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today", which is to say, you're essentially giving the players a cheap IOU for something you should be paying for in your own money. I would suggest paying Fear is going to be less insulting and better accepted...

Wow, that's a pretty awful article, bordering on the hagiographic, and certainly overdetailed, so probably needs to be flagged to Wikipedia actually, because virtually all the (many) sources are just "Avellone claimed this personally" being treated as fact, and most of them are just interviews...

Yes it's an '80s aesthetic. You're not helping your argument by using two "counter-examples" from the turn of the century - about 25 years ago - The Mummy (1999 - and intentionally harking back to Indiana Jones in terms of visual design!) and LotR (2001). As for GoT (2012 - that's 13 years ago)...

I'm replying to an opinion with a mixture of facts (like those re: last 20-30 years of fantasy literature and videogames) and opinions. If that's too much for you to handle, maybe I'm not the problem lol? Kind of feels like you don't think I should be allowed to express firm opinions but doesn't...

Nah, they never are difficult, it's true, they're just boring. That's the thing. If you think a profoundly boring thing can be made interesting without massively reorienting the entire game in a way most players wouldn't be into, you have indeed played too much EU4 and "forgotten the face of...