Search results

I only read the OP and the first few and last few posts, so sorry if this has already been discussed. The OP says of our hero: "One player is likable, charming, a joy to be around. He roleplays his character superbly. Everybody likes him. The GM likes him." In my experience, this combination...

There's a somewhat similar thread in the EN Publishing forum, though it's specific to, and assumes some familiarity with, WotBS. Here's my entry from there, on the rather unexpected resolution my group found for the second adventure.

... what? That sounds like one of those weird and poorly thought out additions for the 4E version. There's nothing remotely like that in the original, and it makes no sense, at least to me. At least in the original, the party will typically have Indom's boon at that point (even if fighting him...

Is Seaquen part of Dassen, or more of an independent city-state? The Player's Guide pretty clearly says the former, but throughout the third adventure they are consistently presented as separate political entities, suggesting the latter. For example, the King of Dassen is said to resent Seaquen...

I changed the layout of the forest a bit (from what I could tell, anyway - the explanations of it are a little vague and the map of the forest shows only about half the stuff it ought to show[1]) specifically to make it more likely the PCs would encounter Nelle and it still didn't happen. They...

Definitely want. And, would prefer this over doing the same thing for 4E - from what I have seen, the 4E versions added useful detail in a few places, but most of the additions are superfluous to the story and several are poorly thought-out. Or to put it a different way, I have a very different...

I started with D&D but was familiar with five other systems (four of which I had at least the core rules for) by the time I turned 13, none of which are among the poll options. My first real love RPG-wise, other than D&D, was Mayfair's old DC Heroes system. Didn't answer the poll because I did...

Nope. There are lots of kinds of chess, and don't quote me on this, but I think all the elements you mention have been part of at least one at some point (though not all at once). It should probably at least have an adjective in front of "chess", if for no other reason than to attract the...

Actually, they're based on the things I said they were based on - namely, failure to use reasonably well-understood best practices - not on something else. It's not so much misreading his audience as (A) writing for far too narrow an audience and (B) writing things that are not maximally useful...

Even if it is, surely it's not the only thing that's important to you. No, I don't think he is, and I certainly am not. This is precisely the egregious misunderstanding I referred to about two pages ago. All we are saying - and we're not assuming it, good reasons have been given in support of it...

I "know" nothing of the sort; it rates maybe a 4 on a good day as far as I'm concerned. I don't disagree with Neuroglyph's overall impression; I just think he did a terrible job of justifying it (and that you've mostly correctly identified the reasons why).

I don't think anyone's denying that, but that is a very long way from what "there are no wounds in D&D" appears to be saying. "Not specifically defined by the mechanics" is one thing, "doesn't exist" is quite another.

These things are definitely of interest to people here, but they're hardly make-or-break. It's one thing to discuss them, it's quite another to seemingly base the entire review on them. Even Neuroglyph seems able to distinguish between fun factor (as Dannager has been calling it) and...

Yes, exactly. As disappointing as the review itself is, what's far worse is how egregiously the criticisms of it are being misunderstood.

I don't even know what "there are no wounds in D&D" is supposed to mean, no matter how many people repeat it as though it were a mantra. Yes, I understand (and in fact, have written fairly extensively about) the abstract nature of hit points and that they don't necessarily equate to physical...

While I agree with much of what's said here, there is so much emphasis on faithfulness to 4E uber alles that this reads like a parody of stereotypical fanboyism. (Poe's Law fully applies here.) The problem isn't that they changed things from the way 4E works, it's that they often did so for no...

How is that "Other", rather than "Sometimes"?

My comment was simply going to be "Anglais, s'il vous plait!" but then I noticed they were commercial advertisements that didn't even have anything obvious to do with RPGs. I can only assume this was a hack or something - surely Morrus & co wouldn't do this intentionally?

The "threads started by" link is looking like an interesting trip down memory lane, but the other one has the same problems as just using search or clicking "find other posts by" - all three top out at 200 results, and give limited if any date range options.

Is there any way to do a search for all my posts (not just the 200 most recent), or more generally to include more than 200 results in a search and/or only results from a date range I can freely choose? Even the "advanced" search seems pretty limited. I could see restricting these things when...