Recent content by TwoSix

That would be the conservative argument, yes.

That certainly makes it sound like the “purpose of a role-playing game” is a bunch of in-character dialogue and thespianism; that might have been the conventional wisdom 25-30 years ago, but I think we’ve moved past that.

So?

Other than gaining some biographical information that you’re willing to cut away a broad swathe of games and play techniques to fulfill your aesthetic needs (like most of us, I imagine), I’m not sure what information we’re supposed to take away from this.

If it’s something that the PC would “never do”, then obviously it can’t be the result of a successful resolution roll in the game. If it’s a valid option for a successful resolution roll, then it seems like the player is making a categorical error in thinking this is something the character...

I think you’ll have to explain why it matters, because it seems like a fair amount of people (myself included) aren’t understanding this distinction you view as important. It’s coming across to me like this definition of success is almost tautological.

But that’s just terminology. It doesn’t matter. 10 is the “success with complications” target, 15 is the “success free and clear” target. The only thing that might matter is if the system has some specific mechanics for that middle 10-14 area. (Sort of like how Daggerheart has specific...

Oh, I definitely don't think you're alone. I simply wanted to express a difference of opinion on what possible concerns are for the book. Those who view 2024 as a fresh start have a different set of priorities and concerns than those of us who view this book as just another 5e release in a...

Unfortunately, my sympathy for those who self-limit their games to an extremely limited subset of the copious amounts of 5e material is very muted. If this is a book with a large amount of character-building material, I'm going to evaluate it as part of the lineage of Xanathar's, Tasha's, and...

As someone who views 2025 as Year 12 of the 5e era, I'm excited to see them get more wild and crazy with the options.

I could definitely see that. Valor, Blade, Artifice, and possibly Wild and Midnight all could stand in as more "mundane" representations of the color's concepts if you wanted to make a "non-caster" class or classes.

Looks solid. Possibly could add a "Colorless" domain group for pure warriors and artifice?

Exactly. People might not like D&D played that way, because they're attached to the principle or aesthetic of "everything in the setting is already generated", which has deep historical roots in D&D. But it's not like using a "fail forward" methodology in D&D would violate a presented core...

I've certainly used it in 3.5, PF, 4e, and 5e. It's fairly trivial to use. "Oh, you failed your arcana check to identify the runes? They're definitely runes of demon summoning, and you've triggered them!"

More just a general awareness of what arguments different posters will make.