Search results

Well, I'd argue that's because they've too frequently hit too many people who act like the default when talking to them is the contrary. But that's just speculation on my part.

That's more a benefit of discrete character build components. Point assignment happens to be the way that's managed in a lot of systems, but if you actually had faith in people's ability to try and all keep on the same page (something I don't think there's any reason for most people to have, to...

While I don't doubt that, the first part would (from where I sit) largely destroy any point with bothering with the game in the first place.

I didn't see any major practical impact from later books (at least in a negative way) at least until Essentials came by. You either were going to like where they were going or you weren't. If anything, some of the later GM-facing books actually fixed a few problems.

I try to use "IME" for similar reasons, but can't say I'm always consistent about it.

It would be helpful if people didn't regularly blur the two together in how they argue things. There's also the problem of what I call "I was there when it happened" which is that people will sometimes deny personal experience (not to be confused with denying the utility of the personal...

Most likely (though these can be indistinguishable from one another) just overcautious.

Well, there's somebody who doesn't understand the rules of the road as it were.

An entirely munchkin group is harmless, except to the degree one or more of them may have learned that's an acceptable way to play that may well produce unpleasant surprises when going to another group. A solitary munchkin in a group that doesn't roll that way, however, can be a brick in the...

While the former, at the very least, requires you have a great degree of faith in your ability to assess a game by reading alone, I'm not actually sure the usual functions of a moderator require knowing the topic of a board being moderated more than in a cursory fashion, given they're primarly...

I've acknowledged that before. However, I think between people who find VTT play a loser, and people who are constrained in what specific VTT they are able and willing to do, I'll stand by my general opinion (though I will agree that the current period is better than it was in, say 2018 in that...

I might extend my position to the U.S. in general, but I wasn't even attempting to make assumptions globally.

Simply put, it was when there was both a wide variety of games and it was relatively easy to still find people who were willing to try things other than D&D.

You have to remember the temporal context it took place in.

You do have to accept premise in that movie, or you're reading it as a different movie (i.e. that the robot police really are incorruptable and won't extend their perview beyond what's presented). There's a movie that can be questioning that premise, but TDTESS isn't it.

Well, that's just being mechanically cautious; there's nothing wrong with that. I just think there's no reason to intrinsically go through a lot of in-game backflips to access the Knife Fighter PrC.

All true enough, but when you're defining what you consider a Golden Age, problem areas are going to be part of why you do or don't consider it one. You gotta look at the topic at hand.

You'd be surprised. Concussion blasts trail off pretty fast. An old demo stunt was to put on a helmet, then set off a concussion charge sitting on top of it because most of the blast would just go upward. Antipersonnel shells are mostly just concussion, but they're a lot of concussion.

While not wrong, if you start getting picky about the horror/SF divide, a number of movies become a problem including Alien.

Nothing says an SF movie can't also have supernatural elements, even big ones. After all, we have the end of Brainstorm.