Search results

So I am not quite sure how literally I should understand "the map and key" in the OP. Because I don't think that this is literally how most gaming even in D&D and similar games work. But like others have pointed out, maps can be understood more broadly, nor they need to exist physically, they...

Which makes it very "mechanics first, fiction as colour." If the player invents something clever that should resolve the situation then and there, it cannot be done as we have not rolled our predetermined amount of checks. Same with character doing something massively disastrous that would make...

Yeah, this is why I always found them unsatisfying as presented. They simply do not do what I want them to do. The "gameplay" becomes about inventing reason to let you roll your best skills, which to be frank, I don't think is the most interesting way to generate compelling fiction either.

The weakness of such allegory is that as by externalising these aspects of human experience to distinct and fixed groups, you elide the aspect of the fluidity of the psyche. That one human may go from "hobbitish" to "orcish" in their behaviour. And I think this elision is rather significant one...

Nope. They have somewhat different wing anatomy than modern birds, but their wings aren't actually backwards.

But that is not how it has been used here nor I think this is even correct.

Sure, but if you are not careful with it, you might mess up the message of your allegory when you consociate it with your mythopoeia. Like for example if you have hobgoblin nazi-analogues as allegory to the human evil of xenophobia, then if the hobgoblins are born like that, as hateful things...

It looks stupid beyond belief.

And that's why it "works" for representing great strength. It feels significant so it is significant. And I certainly do not expect the level of simulationism from D&D where we can equate the exact percentage of the ability score increase to the exact percentage of strength increase in the...

I think different biology will affect behaviour. I think super long lives species will have different attitudes than shorter live ones, people evolved from small herbivorous prey animals will have different temperament than ones evolved from carnivorous pack hunters etc. Though those differing...

But not in way that affects anything.

I really do not like replacing species with cultures that have mechanics tied to them. That easily gets way more offensive than the species having different rules ever did. Like to me it far less problematic to say that all bears have certain characteristics that are different than...

Well, if you want do that, then you do not need to have non-human sapients at all. I think the point of non-humans are that they are some way different than humans, otherwise they would just be humans!

I think caps are better than bonuses or penalties if you use point buy. That's what I did in my houserules. I have maximums and minimums and then point buy. Everyone gets what they pay for, fair and square, the species just sets some limits. With point buy the bonuses are basically just a...

My theoretical preference is for the PC and NPC rules to work similarly ar at least very closely so. I however understand that this is often impractical and in many cases the PC stats have a lot of information that is just not needed for a NPC mook #6. So I'm fine with streamlining the NPC rules...

I have been uncomfortable how D&D has portrayed some species for decades. Literally having evil versions of species you can recognise by their (usually darker) skin tone is so obviously offensive that I am amazed it ever got written. They're moving away from that, though I still think in awkward...

Cool. Then you can buy your character a horse and roleplay that it is a dragon.

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about, say, a totem warrior barbarian taming a wyvern and having it as a pet. Once you have build in pets as part of the power budget of some classes and subclasses, you cannot really do that any more.

That's not how it works. The dedicated pets are not stronger, often they are weaker. Such class invests a huge chunk of their "power budget" into the pet, whereas a petless class uses all of that budget for the character. So now if you let a petless class get an NPC pet, power of that pet is all...

And as they can do that to proper dragons, they obviously aren't overshadowed by them. No. You can just ride proper dragons and then everyone is not forced to play the same subclass to do so!