Search results

Yeah, but that still doesn't count because that's not a reference encyclopedia, which as we all know is what "official title" means when it's said in the blurb for a reference encyclopedia. Context! ;)

I mean, I kept saying that, but... Well, I'd posit that there's a difference between "official lore," i.e. lore that's considered canon or is otherwise approved by WotC, versus an "official title," which is about the publication being made with the acknowledgment and consent of the IP holder...

I disagree; the 76 year olds can vote in this year's midterm elections.

Seems okay, though I'm going to wait for it to be discounted before picking it up (which seems like it happens fairly regularly for these kinds of D&D books; Worlds & Realms is currently sitting at an oddly-specific 57% off for a new copy at Amazon, Lore & Legends is 58% off, etc.).

From now until the end of March, you can get The Black Orifice's Divergence Mechanism Core Rulebook for 50% off! Click on the link to apply the discount. Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

I agree it doesn't look like Soth (and the bat wings are especially odd), but the full version of the picture seems like that scene from Dragons of Spring Dawning where Tanis kills Ariakas and takes the crown of power before Soth can (EDIT: there's some interesting stuff about this over on this...

I feel your pain, brother. I feel your pain. :cry:

Not nearly as much of a surprise: that certain people are descending into tribalism over what they perceive as an attack on a corporation that they're inordinately fond of.

Another instance of someone trying to ice skate uphill.

Isn't the cover of the 1987 Dragonlance Adventures book supposed to be showing Lord Soth without his helmet? That certainly looks like Tanis snatching the crown of power, which suggests that the figure in the background is supposed to be Soth.

You're wildly misstating what "critical reading" is in this context, much like how you're misinterpreting what "official title" means for no good reason. The falsification comes from pointing out that your request for a comparison is based on invalid criteria, i.e. the redefinition of "official...

You're the one making a positive assertion, i.e. that your assumption is not only correct, but that you can demonstrate why that's so. To date, you haven't done this. All you've done is make a bland assertion as to "context," which is that it's presented as part of the ad copy for a reference...

Again, I'm reading the text of what's there. Simply because the text is about a reference encyclopedia doesn't mean that it's claim about it being the first "official title" should therefore be treated as only meaning that it's the first reference encyclopedia. That's an assumption, as you...

Your "context" is what? That it's an ad copy for the book itself? How does that "context" mean that the only "official titles" are reference encyclopedias? Again, you have yet to justify the premise that "official title" means only reference texts, and so your question's premise fails to stand...

So to be clear, you acknowledge that you are making an assumption. Given that, I don't see why I should be presumed to make the same assumption, particularly since I think that the one you're making lacks any credible justification.

I do, and I'm glad that you can acknowledge that. Because that question is predicated on your redefining the term "official title" to mean "reference encyclopedia," when there's no justification for doing so and isn't what the text is saying. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on reading it...

It doesn't need to have similar content and organization beyond the part about the requisite number of campaign worlds and what makes them unique; it just needs to be an official title, which means that Worlds & Realms meets that definition.

Repeatedly proclaiming that your point is legitimate doesn't make it so. The text says that it's the first time ever there's been an official title that does what this one does. If we grant that an art book is also an official title, which we self-evidently can, then that "first time ever"...