Search results

Hello Ludwig. I hope Ludmilla is doing good.

Yes, JG are offering refunds. I pre-ordered that version of CSIO after the campaign ended, and I have been in touch with Robert Bledsaw II since 2018. The man genuinely did his best to correct RB III's mismanagement of the project, despite considerable health problems getting in his way. I was...

One of the things that make a game less work for me as a Gm is player facing combat - players rolling all the dice.

Rest in Peace Ernie. Thank you for your contributions to an adventurous hobby that was passed on to us and has enriched our lives. My condolences to Ernie's family and friends.

Well there's the story of Jacob "stealing" his brother's birthright by deceiving their father (from the book of Genesis). So there's at least one example from an ancient worldview standpoint of "transferring" the birthright. Not to mention how cool that name is :)

I'd argue that if we wanted to go out of our way to find concepts that are 'potentially problematic' in fantasy. We could very easily do that with any setting. And absolutely any aspect that is fantastic, anything could be 'potentially' problematic. Anyone that disagrees, here is my challenge...

Do say more!

Fun fact. A contender for Birthright's slot was a concept by Jeff Grubb called Stormfront. The term was much later (very unfortunately) used by a Nazi forum. The moral of the story is - get your setting out there and claim the term associated with it... before some random extremist group uses it!

I must admit that I didn't quite follow the reasoning in the second paragraph. But you're right in that they refer to authors, plural. Therefore it's more vague, and doesn't directly put Gygax on the hook. As the senior author and the one with editorial oversight, ultimately the text is his...

You're conflating "their words" with "evidence". Evidence is Gary's text. Not their words. In the pages of Greyhawk... The misogyny is revealed as a conscious choice. Passive voice. But we all know Gary wrote Greyhawk. So it's an indirect way to say the same thing.

So if it was so meaningless, why did you edit it out? I thought you said you didn't edit it out: Which one is it?

I bolded the part you edited out, below.

I think they are saying it, but indirectly. I don't infer it from the evidence. Rather by what they said. Passive voice or otherwise.

👍 You got me there. Highschool tactics is my weakness.

Looks like you carefully edited the part where I highlighted the difference. Luckily people can go back and read it, and also they will see the part that you chose to omit. I'll leave it at that.

I respect that take, but it's a very personal one. There is an entire field, semiotics, studying this topic among other things. You're being honest when you say it's your personal opinion. What distinguishes you from WotC is that they are positioning their interpretation as some absolute truth...

Again, I don't think the Founding Fathers is the topic. Gygax didn't own slaves as far as I'm aware, so I don't know where you're going with that.

The foreword is a big part of the topic though, and I'd rather stay on topic. People's opinions of Gygax are their business.

Am I right to think that what you did there was to insinuate that I am being morally bankrupt and cowardly? Even if you were a WotC shareholder, I wouldn't think that's warranted. Anyway, I'm not interested in continuing the conversation with you until you clarify who you meant. I was very...

IMO It's distasteful, unbecoming and a betrayal of the man's legacy. I don't know if you accept these characterisations, but that's what makes it bad to me. But it's not illegal for them to publish it.