Search results

I think the ideas I've elucidated in the last few posts speak for themselves, but if you've come to the conclusion my idea is unreasonable, then I may have to revisit them. The point I was trying to make originally is that discussion is about learning. Learning how and why people disagree with...

100%. People who makes those kinds of posts should generally be ignored. They're a net negative to the community.

True discussion is inherently conflict-laden, because it's about attempting to find a path forward through an inherent disagreement. Trying to find compromise in disagreement is a conflict right up until both sides agree on the compromise. Like this post I'm replying to right here, that you...

I don't consider the transfer of information to explain or elucidate to be a discussion. More of a lecture or a teaching session. What we're doing here, giving clarity into our semantic usage and bouncing different interpretations off of each other, is a productive discussion. Knowing how...

Yep. I think dueling criticisms, especially over aesthetic judgments which don’t have obvious points of compromise, don’t really have a lot of value.

Sure. But then it’s not productive, certainly not how I think of the term. Productive discussions are iron sharpening iron, finding erroneous facts and weak extrapolations, and replacing them with true facts and and stronger extrapolations. You might find a certain joy in discussing why The...

For sure. The ability to look at a set of ideas, and see which one might be worth developing and iterating on is a valuable skillset. But it isn't because the idea itself had some inherent value.

1) You can't generate a productive discussion unless the participants are all willing to be swayed from their starting position. 2) People are very unlikely to ever be swayed from their initial aesthetic judgments. Therefore, don't try to discuss aesthetic judgments. Go into discussions...

This is the Internet. Ideas aren't even a dime a dozen; ideas are barely worth what it costs to pay for the electrons that store them. The ability to execute on a idea and move it to a stage where you have something salable and monetizable is what is actually worth something.

I'm not too worried about Pun-Pun in an Epic-level game. :) But yes, I didn't think about Savage Species; you're correct that there are non-PHB methods to have access to monster stat blocks.

I mean, I don't know of a way to access a monster stat block as a player in 3.5 that isn't derived from gaining access to polymorph self or a related effect somehow, generally through spellcasting, class feature, magic item creation, etc. The core issue is having access to monster abilities as...

Why do we need cleric, druid, bard, warlock and sorcerer when wizard already exists? :)

Rules for a dragon companion are like the 3.5 Leadership feat but even worse. It isn't something that should simply be an opt-in player selection like a subclass. It needs an entire campaign frame and suite of special rules built around it. If only one character is going to be a dragon...

Oh, I'm definitely making some major changes the next time I run a FR game, especially since most of that table was obsessed with BG3.

Definitely a little confusing, since BG3 strongly hinted about the root cause of Stelmane’s condition and it doesn’t seem like something that would be happening a decade and a resurrection later.

Sadly not a space I’ve seen explored in any third party stuff.

Huh…that definitely makes it sound like this book is actually set before the events of BG3.

If people don’t like the Krynn thing, I definitely won’t mention how I’m crossing PDKs with Fourth Wing to get super sexy young knights with magical powers. :)

Sure, but none of those games are also the next D&D. That lineage matters to a lot of players. It is admittedly a difficult hypothetical to answer because there are so many variables. How well does the new game correspond to your preferences? What is the community response and overall...

I think an implicit part of the premise of the OP is that the hypothetical game is neither so perfectly calibrated to one’s taste that adoption is a no-brainer, nor is the game so objectionable that playing it is a non-starter. So then the question becomes one of whether or not you favor...