Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TaranTheWanderer" data-source="post: 8023603" data-attributes="member: 15882">I hope this statement isn't leveled at me.  I have been trying hard to engage honestly.  But maybe people have been misunderstanding my intentions.  Sometimes asking questions or having an alternate perspective isn't actual trolling which may be why their points seemed valid....[USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] I couldn't find the post you were referring to - maybe I have more/less posts per page.  What post # were you referring to?  I appreciate that you see where I'm coming from now, thanks.I'll have a look - seems interesting.  I've never been a huge fan of racial bonuses, but not for the reasons that have been stated here.  Mostly because the munchkin in me screams when I make subpar character choices for the sake of story.  I'd rather keep stat boosts out of the decision making when making a character.  I like the idea of separating Nature from Nurture as far as character generation goes.  It's going to be tricky doing both in a way that won't offend someone because the moment you talk about 'behavior from how you were raised', you have to start talking about culture, which can be tricky. I'm glad I'm not the one having to do the writing.My impression, in the long term, the changes are going to change the face of how people play their typical games.  For instance: if Orcs are no longer seen as the inherently evil 'other', but then they make Gnolls fiends whose nature is of violence and evil - a lot of the D&D tropes (read:  heritage) will involve Gnolls instead of Orcs.  Whether or not people will be ok with that, I don't know.Edit:  For the record:  I'm all for tangents because they can be interesting, and I'm guilty of them too, but it gets frustrating when no-one engages you when you try make an on-topic comment because of a tangent.</blockquote>

Verification