Search results

I have never mistaken ban lists for coherency, distinctiveness, or shapefulness. The vast majority of banlists are all about keeping things as generic and shapeless as they can--by making it so you only play the Extremely Traditional Options, in Extremely Traditional Worlds, using Extremely...

Okay. Why should a laundry list of restrictions be inspiring to me as a player? Why do GMs act like this should be some ultra-exciting thing to hear, rather than looking like "alright, here's all the cool things I'm taking away from you".

This raises a very good point. A lot of GMs present their settings as a laundry list of things they aren't allowed to do, aren't allowed to play, as though that is an inherently cool and inspiring thing. I still to this day do not understand that perspective. "You aren't allowed to do X, Y, Z...

Given those very people are the ones who killed the really creative and interesting Sorcerer and Warlock concepts from the "D&D Next" playtest? Whether it is a healthy attitude to have, we are still under its effects now. We are still shackled with that burden fifteen years on, and are likely to...

But how can I be an outraged GM ranting about the entitlement of players in that paradigm? How can I be an outraged player ranting about the Viking Hat in it? No no, this simply will not do. Far too reasonable. We'll fix it in post.

Unfortunately, WotC listens to them. Y'know, given they were the ones who won the edition war.

Not what I said. People get angry when they feel their preferences have not been placed on, at the very least, top-equal billing.

If you wish to use such a jaundiced description, that's your bag. I see it as choosing to be 44 yards wide, 44 yards long, and 44 yards deep (44.147^3, if you prefer). A cube, the thing which minimizes surface area for a fixed cuboid volume. As opposed to being a foot on either side, and 440...

And they're definitely not going to get mad in the slightest that their preferred setting has been kicked to the curb? I wish I had as much faith in humanity as you do.

So we pick a setting. What do we do with the 3/4 of the audience who aren't interested in that setting, or worse, outright hate it? Or 2/3, or 1/2, or whatever. What incentive is there for those people to stick around with a game that actively does not want their attention? I fully agree with...

Perhaps that is true--indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if a plurality of people would be happy with that. Maybe even a very slim majority! The problem is, that plurality/slim majority would not all pick the same mono-setting. Some people love Greyhawk. Some people love FR. I personally love...

Every setting needs its bright stars shining in the dark. Name: Bahamut Titles: Lord of (the) Scales, The Platinum Dragon, King of Justice Domain: Solidarity (Bahamut represents good overcoming evil because mortals stood firm together) Followers Background: Folk Hero (Bahamut smiles upon...

It provided a very loose-sketch core setting which supported all the existing features, giving them functional thematic roots. It did not reduce all of D&D to only one or two settings. That was never the goal of Nerath...nor the result. So...yeah I just don't agree in the slightest. Making a...

I would argue that even that is a real big stretch for a lot of people because a critical plot point of Starfinder is that Golarion has been completely removed from it. Indeed, that is supposed to be the eternal unsolved mystery of Starfinder: where the f#$k did Golarion go, why does no...

I mean, you can make that argument if you like, but the text pretty pointedly does not mention deities as an option. It says, "Your pact draws on the Upper Planes, the realms of everlasting bliss. You might enter an agreement with an empyrean, a couatl, a sphinx, a unicorn, or another heavenly...

Indeed. As with far too many things, I suspect the power level being asserted is the power level of skillful, intelligent players....who have gotten a Wizard to 20th level with a goodly supply of powerful magic items. Because Wizard spells, at least in AD&D, kind of had "whatever you can get...

Why would Bahamut be known as that specific name--"Bahamut"--to every culture which contains members of his flock? If gods are polydimensional, or trans-planar, or what-have-you, why would they limit their worship to creatures inhabiting only a single livable space (plane, planetary body...

Except it didn't...? Like what on earth are you talking about? Because the Forgotten Realms got a campaign guide two months after PHB1. Eberron got published less than a year after that. That's already three settings (PoL, FR, Eberron), and thus has broken your requirement of just one setting...

Not sure why you'd feel that way. That's how several real-world polytheistic religions worked. Ishtar (Mesopotamian) begat Astarte (Phoenician). Astarte begat Aphrodite (Greek). And then Aphrodite was syncretized with Venus (Roman). Likewise, Hermes is probably an offshoot from Pan (as in...

I mean, I certainly do aim for consensus in the abstract. Building up a common understanding is very helpful. But it's frankly hilarious for someone to say "Aren't we building consensus?" after having: Not read the thread First post admits this Explicitly says they hate a thing lots of people...