Search results

Not at all. Enough people still didn't like that iteration of D&D, so that the subsequent edition of D&D was different enough from that version of D&D, but it's all D&D. It's not hard to understand.

But all you can say is that it doesn't feel like D&D to you. That doesn't mean it isn't D&D. I am not a fan of 3e (except under specific circumstances) at all, but I would never think "that's not D&D."

It's not complicated. Only WotC can make real D&D. And they did so, putting out 4e. Some people tried it and said "This does feel like D&D to me." That's their perception. What else could it be? Hence, the accuracy of my comment above.

The words "Dungeons and Dragons" are right there on the covers.

Except it is...so I guess the problem is with those people's perception.

Yeah, I loved reading it...but if it were a supers game and I was a player? Yeah, no.

Would having SoS spells be subject to hp gatekeeping resolve the issue somewhat? 13thAge does this; you can paralyze someone, but you need to beat them down a bit first.

I sympathize with the whole of your post, but this part right here? This is what made us switch game systems. I was converting all my awesome 2e Al-Qadim stuff to 5e, and for a while it was good, but...the main enemies tend to be spellcasters, and 2 of the PCs had counterspell. That was that...

Sure! In fact, here it is again, with some bolded parts to help you understand it wasn't an absolute truth. "Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc...

...where am I dressing it up as objective fact?

So that's similar to what was called "competitive play" back in the day.

Yes, actually. Those priorities, though, I have found, are better served through video games like Baldur's Gate, or campaign games like Roll Player Adventures, Tainted Grail, etc. When I made the board game comment above, it wasn't as a perjorative.* What RPGs can do that can't be replicated...

Of course it's tragic in the real world; no idea what you're trying to do by pointing out something so obvious, but sure, yeah, ok. In a game/movie/novel, it is comedic/lame precisely because it's the decision taken by a human being to have that conclusion happen when any of an infinite number...

Retreating from combat: still engaging with the game and the story. Avoiding any activity that has a 1 in 20 chance of instant death: Smart and cautious...but not engaging with the game and story.

In the scenario I describe above? Where the paladin rolls a 1 and as a result determined by his GM, he falls to his death? Yeah, I'd like to see that described as something other than comedy too.

This is strawman crap.

There's probably a discussion to be had about that, sure, but the scenario I described above? Makes sense in a kind of comedic, 3-Stooges kind of way, but not really any other.

No, we can let him die and ressurrect him later. Your words.

It's over for the paladin...and in very lame fashion.

Those are what I am talking about, unfortunately.