Search results

No, anyone can decide what to do with them. “Setting Integrity” is just another way of saying everyone should be playing in the same way.

That’s not the problem of those people. It’s no excuse for attacking them. There are ways of expressing that disaffection whilst being happy for the people who like the current take. And you are more likely to win people over wish positivity than negativity. And you say you like Level Up. So...

In my experience, this has been going on for decades. I’ve come across a fair few in the FR.

I’m pretty sure that was the intended flavour. Southern Gothic was already a genre at that time. Larissa Snowmane has a riverboat in VGR. Since she isn’t a Darklord the riverboat can travel between domains. Nathan Timothy still exists, but is only mentioned as an adversary of Larissa.

Being unhappy with what other people like isn’t really acceptable, even expressed more politely. Railing against the modern world isn’t a good look. Other people having fun differently to you does you no harm. It literally isn’t.

“I’m not keen on quirky and unusual characters. I prefer more grounded fantasy.”

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and expressing disdain for people who don’t share it.

Again with the elitism. You realise it’s okay for people to like different things?

+novels +adventures +action figures

With hindsight, the poster was spot on. But that didn’t stop people complaining about it before they saw the film. Sounds familiar…

You can buy NWN for less than a bar of chocolate and mod it for the next 20 years. The steep discounting games get a year or so after release means that the tail might be long, but it is monofilament thin. A company isn’t going to make significant revenue that way.

Indeed, and when the DMG comes out I suspect what is says about world building will prove more divisive than a little bit of Greyhawk.

In my experience, players want their characters to be quirky and unique. My current group include a pigman, a genetically modified cat and a body in a tank.

This statement is undoubtedly true, since no matter what they do there will be a faction of people who hate it. The idea here is to do as little as possible, thus minimising what people have to object to, whilst trying to show they don’t consider the setting dead.

That’s great, fantasy is jam packed with unique heroes with special powers that no one else has. The lesson WotC needs to teach (and not just to new DMs) is “you don’t need to explain everything”.

It’s a form of life support. Like the references to Greyhawk in current adventures. WotC can say “we still support the Greyhawk setting” without actually putting out a setting book which they know would not be popular with either the current generation or old time fans.

The original Star Wars poster is very much not an “action scene” and it deliberately harks back to retro fantasy art. I seem to recall 1970s grogs being offended by the use of “fantasy poses” in science fiction.

You can do that if you wish, and for each of the dozens of other races that have never been forbidden, but that’s rather beyond the scope of a single chapter focused on world building. They won’t say “they have always been there”, they won’t say anything at all. But you would be hard pushed to...

However you spin it, at the time these adventures were written D&D was much more deadly and it was a lot less likely that a dying person would jump back up again. You can’t really evaluate these adventures without considering the ruleset they were designed to operate under.

I will point out that there was never any rule in Greyhawk that said "there are no dragonborn in this setting". All the player races in the Player's Handbook where allowed (plus a bunch of others added later, through Dragon magazine). That's not going to change.